All Life Is Problem Solving

There’s remarkably little attention given to the discussion of how we ought to evaluate knowledge claims in spite of the fact that this issue is rather central to both knowledge processing and KM. I’ve argued for the importance of KCE in the past. Here I want to illustrate its importance with a critical take on […]

[Read more →]

There were two more highly interesting contributions to the discussion of KM 2.0 in 2007. The first of these was by Mike Murphy (CEO of InQuira), appeared in DM Review, and is entitled “Knowledge Management Revitalized.” The second was by Dave Pollard, appeared in his blog, “How to Save the World,” and is entitled “KM […]

[Read more →]

4) Another important point made by Dave in the podcast is that those looking to create a knowledge sharing culture are thinking about knowledge sharing from the wrong perspective. The problem is not to create such a culture, but rather to increase the connectivity of people, whereupon they will naturally share because the increased connectivity […]

[Read more →]

The next major contribution to the KM 2.0 discussion comes in an interview of Dave Snowden by Jon Husband entitled “The Impact of Web 2.0 on Knowledge Work and Knowledge Management.” The interview was done on October 15, 2007, and then produced and distributed as a podcast. This podcast was followed by many reactions in […]

[Read more →]

To foster openness in an adaptive team, try to create a culture where team members internalize the following norms, collectively known as the Sustainability Code, developed by Mark McElroy and I a few years ago for our CKIM Workshop. Here’s the code: 1. All knowledge used as a basis for individual and/or shared action by […]

[Read more →]

My last post commented on Dave Snowden’s primary argument against a National KM Center, discussed in “Emperor’s Chess Board: Pt. 1” and “The Empire Repeats.” In addition to this argument, however, in “The Empire Repeats,” he wrote of two themes that emerged in the actkm discussion on National KM Centers and “connecting the dots.” The […]

[Read more →]

In a recent post entitled “The Emperor’s Chess Board: Pt 1”, Dave challenged “the concept of centralisation of a government knowledge function (I will qualify this a bit in a future post), arguing that it would manifestly lead to failure to achieve the key goals of making a nation more secure.” Before I consider Dave’s […]

[Read more →]

I think, Joe, you have raised some very interesting and reflective comments in your two blogs on “Popper’s three worlds ontology.”   Firstly, let me state, that I think it is inevitable that some reformulation of the three worlds ontology needs to be explored and will be explored by those that see the merit in […]

[Read more →]

Comparative Evaluation of the Two Theories Let’s compare the two theories of the three worlds, world-by-world, as it were. First, Popper’s W1 has the disadvantage that it blurs the distinction between the living and the non-living, since both are included in W1. This also has the effect of including knowledge in W1 without specifying a […]

[Read more →]

Popper’s Three Worlds Ontology In his Objective Knowledge (1972), Karl Popper introduced the idea of three ontological worlds or domains. The first world is the world of material objects, events, and processes, including the domain of biology. The second world is the world of mental events, processes, and predispositions– the world of beliefs and other […]

[Read more →]