All Life Is Problem Solving

The over-riding problem with shifting from a “KM” orientation to a “knowledge sharing” one, is that the words don’t mean the same thing, and focusing on one or the other may well lead to different policies, programs, and interventions. Put another way, since “Knowledge Sharing” and Knowledge Management are not the same thing, it’s possible […]

[Read more →]

IBM was not the first large organization to decide that “knowledge sharing” is an easier sell than “KM.” The World Bank preceded IBM in this move by more than a decade, long before the advent of Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0. The Bank decided to use”knowledge sharing” as the orienting idea in their knowledge-related program […]

[Read more →]

Introduction In my two previous posts I’ve talked about the OODA loop framework and its relationships to the Decision Execution Cycle (DEC), Single- and Double-loop learning, and the Knowledge Life Cycle (KLC) frameworks. Here I want to discuss the relationship of Recognition Primed Decision Making (RPD), a primary type of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) to […]

[Read more →]

Introduction In my last post, I examined John Boyd’s OODA Loop framework and discussed its relationship to double-loop learning. I mentioned there that OODA was one of a number of similar Decision Learning Cycle (DLC) frameworks developed by various writers over the years, including my own Decision Execution Cycle (DEC) framework. In this post, I’ll […]

[Read more →]

Decision and Learning Cycles There are a number of examples in the organizational learning field of frameworks that conjecture a cyclic agent behavioral process of decision, action, experiential feedback, and then adjustment followed by new action. Such frameworks are not new. Russell Ackoff and Kolb and Fry in the 1970s, Kolb in the 1980s, and […]

[Read more →]

  This post is about “safe-fail experiments.” The essential idea in safe-fail experiments was expressed well by Dave Snowden in this way: “I can afford them to fail and critically, I plan them so that through that failure I learn more about the terrain through which I wish to travel.” And again, in another place, […]

[Read more →]

  There are three interesting questions we’d like to take up in this part. — First, assuming that the approach taken by Cynefin, requiring sensemaking through first selecting the context type one is dealing with is appropriate, is the Cynefin framework complete enough as it stands or does it fail to identify important types of […]

[Read more →]

  It’s now time to review Dave’s characterizations of the three remaining contexts and to comment on them. Again using the HBR article as the primary source for my discussion, the “complicated” domain is characterized as follows. Complicated — Expert diagnosis required — Cause-and-effect relationships discoverable but not immediately apparent to everyone; — More than […]

[Read more →]

  In earlier posts, I discussed Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework from the viewpoint of systems classification, offered an alternative to it, and then offered some critical comments. I did this because (a) Dave sometimes used the term “system” in describing one or another Cynefin “domain” and (b) a lot of the recent discussion on Cynefin […]

[Read more →]

Introduction   One of the aspects of Dave Snowden’s Cynefin approach is the identification of three physical and five human “domains,” or “systems.” The physical systems are called “order,” “chaos,” and “complexity.” In the area of human systems Dave breaks “order” down into known (simple) and knowable (complicated) systems, and also adds a fifth “domain” […]

[Read more →]