All Life Is Problem Solving

This post continues the discussion begun in Part Three of this series with an analysis of problems with the underlying conceptual model of the presentation on the Federal KM Initiative. Here’s a graphic of that model as I’ve reconstructed it from the text of the presentation.

Reconstruction of Neil Olonoff’s Conceptual Model

Let’s work backwards from the benefits. These are enhanced by the “knowledge” resulting from increased sharing. But again, what is this “knowledge?” Is it “beliefs” in the sense of psychological orientations to situations that have been shared? Is it “attitudes” that have been shared? Is it the content we find in documents in both electronic and other formats? Is it all three? Further, will any kinds of beliefs, attitudes, or document content, enhance these benefits, or only beliefs, attitudes, or content of a particular sort? If the latter, then what sort of beliefs, attitudes, or content are we talking about? If one says, beliefs, attitudes, or content constituting knowledge, then the question arises: what differentiates beliefs attitudes, or content constituting knowledge from other beliefs, attitudes, or content? And even if we could answer these questions, then there’s the further issue of whether all shared “knowledge” will enhance the four benefit outcomes? And if not, how do we distinguish “good knowledge” that will enhance the four benefits from “bad knowledge” that detracts from them?

Some might say that all these questions are beside the point since the claim being made is that “shared knowledge” must enhance these benefits, because if we really have “knowledge,” that knowledge can’t be wrong, so anything based on it, like the four benefits, has to be enhanced since it is the result of applying knowledge that is “true.” Well, if one defines knowledge as beliefs, attitudes, or perhaps content that is “true,” that argument will hold. But then there’s another problem, and that is that “knowledge sharing” occurs by means of sharing experiences and sharing linguistic and other cultural content. Unfortunately, both experience and cultural content embed much more than “knowledge,” especially if we define it as some form of “true” content. Some of what we get from engaging with experience and content may be “knowledge,” in this sense of the term, but much more of what we label “knowledge” may be beliefs, attitudes, and content that misleads us about both ourselves and the external world. So, how will we know whether what has been shared is “knowledge” or error? And if it is error, then why should we expect it to enhance the four benefits as required by the model?

Let’s look at the next link in the model sequence connecting enhanced knowledge sharing and “knowledge.” This is another link that seems transparent on the surface, but that is problematic. The reason why it seems transparent is that one interpretation of it sounds like a tautology. “Of course, if we enhance knowledge sharing, the outcome will be a greater amount of shared knowledge. Isn’t that a consequence of the definition of knowledge sharing?” Right. But tautologies don’t provide useful knowledge about the world. And those who take refuge in them to avoid being wrong, can learn nothing, and can’t grow their knowledge. So, let’s not look at this link as a tautology. Let’s look at it instead as a link between the outcome of efforts to increase knowledge sharing and the outcome of the results of those efforts, whether or not those results actually increase shared knowledge.

What do efforts at knowledge sharing actually do? I think the answer is that, if successful, they get people to increase their frequency of expression of knowledge claims to each other in electronic or other media formats, and also in interpersonal social contexts. It’s important to realize, however, that from the viewpoint of those on the receiving end to whom these knowledge claims are new, the knowledge claims themselves are just information, not knowledge. They may or may not be knowledge to those sending them. Some of them may even be claims that have been accepted by the organization as “knowledge.” But from the standpoint of those receiving them they are just information until they’re accepted by the recipient.

The significance of this is that both “information” and “knowledge” are the outcome of “knowledge sharing” efforts. Still further, insofar as people receiving knowledge claims don’t find them acceptable, “knowledge sharing” may give rise to “problems,” rather than to enhanced knowledge. If this is right, then the question arises: how can we distinguish among the information, knowledge, and problem outcomes of knowledge sharing activities, and furthermore, do all of these outcomes add to the four benefits discussed above? Again, what if the outcomes we label “knowledge” are in error? What are the arguments suggesting that the information, problem, and knowledge outcomes of knowledge sharing are likely, in fact, to produce the four benefits named by Neil? Whatever these arguments are, they are not covered in the presentation, and they are very important, because it is likely that much of the content we label “knowledge” is in error, and that it is therefore false information.

Moving to the first link in the model sequence, between the achieved goals and higher quality “knowledge sharing” activities, Neil’s presentation specifies 9 goals that, if achieved, will enhance knowledge sharing activities. Let’s look at each one and ask whether, accomplishing it is likely to enhance knowledge sharing. For each goal, let’s ask whether it, alone, or in combination with another goal is likely to enhance knowledge sharing.

The first two goals: establish a Federal KM Center; and create a Federal CKO position, do not, by themselves enhance knowledge sharing activities. Rather we have to assume that these entities will act in a way that is effective for doing so. Neil mentions that the Center and the CKO would provide a resource for Federal KM, consultation on KM, coordination with colleagues outside of the Center, and would demonstrate the benefits of sharing and collaborating across agencies. These activities might enhance “knowledge sharing,” but, as they often say, the devil is in the missing details. The third goal: enact policies, standards, and practices for KM Governance won’t enhance knowledge sharing directly, but will enhance the efficiency of KM activities. Goal 4: establishing a web presence, and KM awareness, again, will not directly enhance knowledge sharing; but will, at most, make the Federal KM Center and the CKO a hub for supporting efforts to enhance knowledge sharing. Goal 5: Training Federal Workers in KM skills doesn’t directly enhance knowledge sharing, but it does help to create more Knowledge Managers in the Federal System. However, in Neil’s slide 21 it’s clear that Neil isn’t really referring to KM skills, but rather to “knowledge work competencies,” which is not the same thing. What’s meant by “knowledge work competencies” is not made clear in the presentation. But Neil says that these bring a greater understanding and appreciation of the value of “knowledge sharing.” That may be, but isn’t one of the knowledge work competencies covered in the training “knowledge sharing” itself? And, if so, why not just say so?

Goal 6: build a knowledge sharing culture would, on the surface, clearly enhance “knowledge sharing.” But what does this idea really mean? That is, how do I know that I’ve achieved a knowledge sharing culture? If the only way I know that, is if knowledge sharing activity is actually enhanced, then the idea that there is a causal relationship between these two things has been replaced by the idea that a knowledge sharing culture involves knowledge sharing behavior by definition, and therefore Neil is not talking about an intermediate independent goal at all, but rather the more fundamental requirement of enhancing knowledge sharing itself. On the other hand, if by a “knowledge sharing culture,” Neil means something other than knowledge sharing behavior, then that is not made clear in the presentation, and we cannot evaluate whether or not the causal connection between the two things is plausible.

In slide 22, Neil lays out five measures for building a knowledge sharing culture: leadership support, explicit knowledge sharing and collaboration policies, proactive support and consultation, KM competency training, and build awareness of KM resources. I don’t know that the last two will directly build a knowledge sharing culture. The first three might, depending on the details. But again we are faced by a certain vagueness in the presentation that makes it very difficult to evaluate the connections between these measures and the outcome, knowledge sharing culture. Things would certainly be more clear if we knew what kinds of leadership support, explicit knowledge sharing and collaboration policies, and proactive support and consultation are involved. But this is another important gap in the underlying argument of the presentation.

Goal 7: age wave retirement and recruiting programs, may or may not enhance knowledge sharing activity. That is, their purpose is to facilitate enhanced knowledge sharing between those at the end of their careers and others. But they are not so much an answer to the problem of knowledge sharing, as they are programs that must use KM intervention procedures, techniques, and tools to facilitate knowledge sharing. The important question here, is what sorts of procedures, techniques, and tools, would be effective in the context of age wave retirement programs to enhance knowledge sharing in them. The presentation is silent about this. Of course, any such techniques would have to take into account the problem of distinguishing knowledge from information I discussed earlier.

Goal 8: establish Web 2.0 and social computing policies under the auspices of the CKO. I guess I think this goal is both too limited and too expansive. First, it’s too limited in that it should make reference to all IT tools, since tools other than Web 2.0 tools may be very important for knowledge processing and knowledge sharing. In particular, the imminent appearance of Web 3.0 tools and the coming of Web 4.0 tools in the next 5 years or sooner should also be mentioned if any software generations are at all. I think that if software is to be mentioned as a factor making enhanced knowledge sharing more likely, then this should only be done with the proper qualifications about background social conditions required for successful knowledge sharing.

Web 2.0 tools can facilitate information sharing among those who have a disposition to use them But, that willingness is key, and must be facilitated by something other than the tools themselves. Also, even where the willingness is there, enhancing information sharing is not the same as enhancing knowledge sharing. There’s nothing in either previous generation IT tools, or in Web 2.0 that inherently supports making distinctions between information and knowledge. You won’t be able to tell whether the use of Web 2.0 tools really does enhance knowledge sharing without some value-added to the tools specifically designed to make the distinction between information and knowledge. I’ve recently finished an extensive blog series on KM 2.0 and related issues for anyone interested in the relationships among Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, KM 2.0, social computing, social media, and KM. Links to the various blogs are here.

Second, I think this goal is too expansive because I don’t think the CKO will ever be able to have the primary responsibility for establishing social computing policies. Too many other interests apart from the KM interest are involved, including, of course, IT interests important to the CIO, and also the decentralized interests of management in each agency. The CKO may be able to recommend those social computing policies that support and enable knowledge sharing, but it will never be able to command those policies except perhaps within the Federal KM Center itself, for the simple reason that social computing is not KM’s property. It belongs to everyone.

Goal 9: Recruiting Generation Y employees, is based on the idea that Generation Y individuals have a special capability to use Web 2.0 and social computing, that individuals of other generations don’t have, and also on the accompanying idea that Web 2.0 and social computing capability is a special requirement for enhancing knowledge sharing. Even if this were true, I really wonder about this goal because it seems, on the surface, to discriminate in hiring based on age cohort, an illegal hiring practice. Assuming that Web 2.0 and social computing capabilities are needed in the Federal Government, then hiring campaigns can require those capabilities of new recruits. What they cannot do is to require birth in the Generation Y cohort as a qualification for a Federal Civil Service or contract position.

In sum, I think there are many difficulties of vagueness and ambiguity in the model underlying the presentation’s argument for a Federal KM initiative enhancing knowledge sharing. The argument is ill-defined or unpersuasive at each of the critical links between major nodes of the model. The result is that the argument taken as a whole is unpersuasive and not compelling. It’s not clear that the action plan will produce enhanced knowledge sharing, or that enhanced knowledge sharing will produce enhanced shared knowledge, or that enhanced shared knowledge will produce the four benefits mentioned in the presentation. In my view, this argument needs a very strong effort at recasting and tightening up. As it is now, it will be only be persuasive in “preaching to the choir.”

In this post, and in Part Three of this series, I’ve attempted a comprehensive critique of Neil Olonoff’s presentation calling for a new Federal KM Initiative. In a previous comment, Neil had indicated that his presentation is a very preliminary “straw man” rather than anything close to a final proposal for this initiative. So much the better then, to critique it at this early stage and to join with the 40 active participants who are offering suggestions to improve the proposal. The problems I’ve found with the presentation include: a) using too narrow a conception of KM and therefore understating its importance for Federal activities; b) failing to commit to an account of “knowledge,” thus creating a lack of clarity in one of the primary arguments in the presentation; c) proposing that the Federal CKO be located in the Federal CTOs office; d) failing to make a more positive case for KM; e) a variety of loose formulations raising conceptual questions and lowering the credibility of the argument and f) problems with the model at the core of the presentation.

In Neil’s comment on my first critical blog, he’s indicated that the proposal to locate the Federal CKO under the CTO has been withdrawn, since it was based on an error in Administration’s documents. The other areas of criticism remain however, and, I think, raise serious questions about the viability of the Federal KM Working Group proposal. I hope the FKMWG will try to meet the criticisms I’ve raised and even seriously consider my own proposal for a Federal KM Center, which uses a much broader conception of KM, commits to a specific view of knowledge, locates the CKO within a Knowledge Accountability Office responsible to the Congress, and is, I think, conceptually tighter than the present FKMWG alternatives since it’s grounded, in part, in complexity theory. In future blogs I’ll be talking more about my own proposal.