It’s not easy for people to accept that continuous critical evaluation of our ideas is a good thing. During the discussion in the actkm listserv Neil Olonoff responded very strongly to my view that continuous critical evaluation on a level playing field is a good thing. He pointed out that: “Many well-known products and services have been initially deep sixed by the criticism that they were “obviously” deficient in some way, viewed from the present frame of reference.”
I pointed out, in reply, that I didn’t think they were “deep sixed” by criticism, but by the people involved and the wrong kind of criticism. They weren’t subject to criticism using a level playing field, because the kind of critical approach to new ideas we get in our closed hierarchical organizations doesn’t represent a level playing field. Then I pointed out that what I favor is the kind of criticism I give: civil criticism using logic and reason. I don’t favor any kind of criticism. I don’t favor ad hominem criticism, or labeling, or ridicule. There are norms of criticism that need to be followed. I’d like to see norms of fair critical comparison followed. But, at a minimum, the rules discussed in this blog post would allow a more measured consideration of new ideas than we normally see in corporate or other organizational circles.
Neil also said that: “The execs at Xerox Headquarters rejected the ideas of PARC (the LAN, the graphical user interface, most of the ideas that Apple later used for the Mac) because they couldn’t envision executives using something as silly-sounding as a “mouse.”” I replied to this by pointing out people will always make errors in evaluating either new or old ideas. They also make errors in thinking up new ideas. Most of our new ideas, not to put too fine a point on it, are crap. So what do we do? I say we feel free to propose new ideas and also feel free to evaluate, select among them, and keep a record of it all, and give everybody access to the record, so they can always come back to the “mouse idea” later on if they want to change their evaluation of it.
I also think that we really can’t avoid immediate evaluation of our ideas. We are human after all, and because we’re the storytelling animal we also have to be the evaluating animal, because if we weren’t either our stories wouldn’t be any damned good, or our stories would, all too often, fool us into doing things that we shouldn’t. If you try to get people to stop evaluating ideas, they’ll only do it sub rosa anyway, so you might as well have the evaluation out in the open. The resulting criticisms are likely to be more rational that way.
Neil also pointed out that “there are dozens — hundreds — of examples of ideas that were initially poo-poohed (Xerox copiers, Post-It notes, etc.) which survived only through strenuous efforts. Now, it is possible to argue that, since they survived, it is proof that they were deserving of survival despite their initial suppression.”
And I replied by saying that criticism is part of the process of evaluation. It’s not guaranteed to do a good job of selecting the best alternative in every case, or of safeguarding and nurturing new ideas; but, by-and-large, ideas get developed and refined in interaction with criticism. As long as the criticism conforms to the kinds of norms I’ve specified in the blog above, they’re a help to the development of knowledge rather than a hindrance.
Neil also points to “the example of Gore Corp., makers of Goretex, in which only one out of six ideas succeed, but all are encouraged, because one never knows which idea will succeed. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies and research scientists must wander down many blind alleys with an optimistic spirit of exploration. The naysayer who carps “You’ll never find anything that way,” is not helpful.”
My reply to this is that I think it makes the mistake of confusing the presence of criticism with the absence of encouragement, and with some sort of barrier to learning, and I think whether this is the case clearly depends on the kind of criticism that is offered. Again, if criticism is ad hominem, involves labeling, or personal attacks, or is just dismissive, then, of course, that kind of criticism is not the sort one can learn from. But if we learn from error, which I think we do, then it follows that criticism that shows us where we may be in error, is criticism that can help us to learn; and I don’t think we ought to wait for some time for that opportunity to learn, when it can be forthcoming immediately, if only we open ourselves to critical evaluation continuously.
Neil’s final remark used an analogy. “Andre Gide said, “In order to discover new lands, one must be willing to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.” One would hardly set sail without the optimistic attitude that one would find something. In the critical atmosphere proposed above, I doubt that anyone would discover anything. They would simply leave the organization, as Mr. Gore left DuPont, and set out on their own.”
To which I replied: When one sets sail to discover something, doesn’t one need monitoring and evaluation as one goes along? I think one does and that the smart person setting sail is not rudderless and drifting, and uses blind variation, rather than random variation, always with an eye to how one’s actions are fitting one’s environment. I understand the concern that criticism in organizational environments can be stifling, and I agree that this is true in closed organizations where the function of criticism is to ask someone to justify what they’re doing relative to eternal verities, i.e. given knowledge of the conservative organization. However, the critical evaluation I am calling for is in a different context; one where people seek problems with the conventional wisdom, develop new ideas to solve the problems that are found when we question that wisdom, and then critically evaluate those new ideas to find the ones that are strongest and have the most promise for application.
Finally, I think the model we ought to look at here is the model of the Artist or Composer creating a new work. Any new set of brush strokes, or set of musical notes is critically evaluated by the Artist or Composer as the new painting or musical composition is created. The alternation between creation and critical evaluation is continuous and seamless. We should try to achieve a similar relationship in developing new ideas.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Henk Hadders // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Dear Joe,
It was only recently that I looked at the Act-KM platform you mentioned, and it’s good to see that KM professionals are trying to develop common KM-standards for their profession. I also recognized why you reacted the way you did to a specific post of Neil Olonoff, I would have done the same.
1.
The first reason to react to this post was your final paragraph linking the core-element of KM (which for me is Knowledge Claim Evaluation) to a model of Arts in an Open Enterprise setting. It seems to me that you are describing a model for Arts in organizational KM, whereby it’s not only about the head, but it’s also about the heart and the hands (and also requiring …..Open Minded Individuals and an Open Society). As we cannot separate “thinking” from “acting” (all ideas need an environment to emerge, but also need to be critically tested before implementation), I agree with you that ideas really can kill us.
2.
For more than 2000 years great minds and scholars (Plato, Kant, Dewey, Popper, Habermas etc.). have proposed some form or another of the “Big Three” (the good, the true, and the beautiful) , a general division of reality in three worlds: subjective (I), intersubjective (We) and objective (It). Habermas linked these with different validity claims: truth (objects), truthfulness or sincerity (subjects) and rightness or justice (intersubjectivity). Are we discussing here just the objective (It) part, critically testing knowledge claims embedded in new ideas, or also the subjective part (I) ….as KM should be integral?
3.
The second reason to react was due the fact that I’m following up on recent developments within the Organizational Learning movement. I’ve just read a really beautiful book called “Presence” written by Peter Senge, Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers ( http://www.presence.net/ ). I’m now starting to read a book called “The Necessary Revolution, How Individuals and Organizations are working together to create a sustainable World” written by Peter Senge et.al. (http://www.amazon.com/Necessary-Revolution-individuals-organizations-sustainable/dp/038551901X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246723696&sr=1-2 ). I really think that the KM-field has neglected the fast developments in the OL-field and should re-align with these recent developments.
4.
More specific I think the KM-field (since the Fifth Discipline) needs to look at the “U-theory” of OL more closely; there are no new wonders here, but I think that adopting the subtleties of this model would suite your purpose fine. If you haven’t read these books, I strongly suggest you do. It seems to me the KM field has divorced from OL, but it’s time to re-marry again.
5.
There are funny things in this (bottom) U-turn, such as developing new ideas by letting go and letting the future (ideas) emerge, and as it were…..developing through you, which means to get in touch with the Whole or the Universe, learn from it’s not-yet-embodied knowledge and wisdom (just call it learning by intuition). Can KM (and its evolutionary epistemology) really handle these emerging, evolutionary developmental lines of knowledge ? But I’m sure of one thing…. all these financial-bottom-line-KM-people are already in position to crucify me. They just don’t care about the Whole (= the environment of their organizations).
6.
I know that you see data as structured information and (conventional) wisdom as a particular decision model, but there must be some kind of Ackoff’s DIKW developmental line out there in the world, for it seems to me that not only information emerges (first generation KM) to knowledge (second generation KM), but that the next developmental line must have something to do with T.S Elliot’s words: “Where is the Life we have lost in living. Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”. I happen to think this is also true for (emerging) ideas,
7.
I really like this image and the picture you painted, …..a (KM) artist overwhelmed by his/her dialogue with the Universe and then …..the human steps back and evaluates its creation.
Henk
2 Joe // Jul 5, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Dear Henk,
Thanks for your various comments in this reply, which I very much enjoyed.
I very much agreed with and appreciated the way you put things in comment 1, and really have nothing to add to it.
In answer to your comment 2 I think I was talking about both the subjective and objective worlds 2 and 3 of Popper. Both are impacted by the nature of criticism and its continuous use in evaluation.
On your comments 3 and 4, I agree that KM should track OL developments closely since the two fields are so closely related. I haven’t read the books you referenced, but had seen some papers by Senge and Scharmer on U Theory not too long ago. Frankly, I thought that their thinking in these papers was more about semantics than reality, and not very well oriented toward the objective study of values either. I won’t say anymore here, because I’ve forgotten the details of what I’ve read, and would have to go back to formulate my views more carefully. Also, I haven’t read the books you mention. However, I just wanted to express a bit of skepticism here based on my first impressions, and to say that I will take another look based on your recommendation.
In comment 5 you point out that U-Theory recommends developing new ideas by “letting go,” getting in touch with the universe, and letting them emerge. I agree with this, and think it is one of many ways to come up with new ideas. We don’t have many systematic studies of different methods of coming up with new ideas and their relative effectiveness. I think evolutionary epistemology has no trouble handling emergent knowledge, since emergence can deliver the new ideas while evaluation selects among them. About financial bottom-line KM people, if they don’t care about the whole, they’re not really doing KM.
On your comment 6, I remain skeptical, and critical of the DIKW model and also of the T. S. Eliot view. From my perspective Eliot had a justificationist and Platonic view of knowledge that is in error. I have no reason to believe that he understood the social nature of data either. About the DIKW model, as you know it is a pyramid model. It is the pyramid view I am against, and also the idea that the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom circles do not overlap in any way. I think that this is profoundly wrong-headed. However, I also think that knowledge emerges out of information, data, and other knowledge and that so does wisdom. Things are just not pyramidal. They are web-like.
Finally, the image I used that you referred to in comment 7 comes from Karl Popper’s work. Karl was a carpenter, and also a bit of a musician and a composer, in addition to his work in philosophy. He understood very well the intense and continuous feedback relations between “a man and his work,” and he wrote eloquently about it in his Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem (pp. 140-141).