I found a fascinating article today. It's titled "Infants Have 'Mind-reading' Capability" from Science Daily.
The title caught my mind for the simple fact that as adults we spend so much time trying to gain knowledge and pick on other people's brain for our own self interest. We have these sophisticated concepts and learning tools; strategies to ensure people share their knowledge with as efficiently as possible, yet it's sooooo complicated do so...
Meanwhile, "3-month-old infants are able to exhibit the ability to attribute mental content." WTF?? They are able to communicate so naturally. They rely on instincts to express themselves and share what's on their mind. In so many ways their knowledge transfer process is so much simpler and more efficient than ours...Maybe we should get back to simpler things and become babies again!
Anyhow, below is the link to the article. Just a note of caution however, the statements made in the article are not necessarily scientifically proven...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070803110811.htm
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Viusal Wikis
We've had very passionate discussions about wikis throughout this semester. So I thought it would be interesting to discuss it here as well.
Below is a video I found on Youtube, dealing with Google's view and use of the Visual Wiki. A Visual Wiki's aim is to help users visualize information and knowledge, in addition to using common Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 collaborative tools (Wikis in this case). It deals with the ability of an organization to visualize and organize knowledge in various rich scenarios.
The video is is quite interesting, although long as it runs for 30 minutes. So I invite you all to get your pop corn ready, sit back, relax, and enjoy ! You will not be disappointed.
Below is a video I found on Youtube, dealing with Google's view and use of the Visual Wiki. A Visual Wiki's aim is to help users visualize information and knowledge, in addition to using common Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 collaborative tools (Wikis in this case). It deals with the ability of an organization to visualize and organize knowledge in various rich scenarios.
The video is is quite interesting, although long as it runs for 30 minutes. So I invite you all to get your pop corn ready, sit back, relax, and enjoy ! You will not be disappointed.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Challenges in Building Knowledge Capacity
To continue with the World Bank report regarding Building knowledge capacity in Africa, I will outline below what I believe are two of the main challenges the Bank recognized in the report.
Brokering country learning opportunities: relates to the ability of teams to behave as providers of knowledge (i.e., advice on policies and practices that cumulated Bank experience considers as effective approaches to addressing development issues); and as enablers of country learning to help adapt that knowledge to the specific context.
Recognizing and nurturing the needed behavioral competencies: This is about developing processes to better identify and nurture behavioral competencies needed for teams to play the enabler/broker role for country capacity enhancement. Those behavioral competencies represent a complement to technical skills needed to play an effective role in capacity enhancement. In my opinion, this is where Knowledge Management gets linked to other fields like Change Management and Organizational Behavior. The Bank clearly recognizes that the people are the main source of knowledge and their buy-in is crucial to the success of any KM process in a country or an organization. A firm or a country has to have a clear vision, a holistic strategy and a clear understanding of how component work and affect one another.
Brokering country learning opportunities: relates to the ability of teams to behave as providers of knowledge (i.e., advice on policies and practices that cumulated Bank experience considers as effective approaches to addressing development issues); and as enablers of country learning to help adapt that knowledge to the specific context.
Recognizing and nurturing the needed behavioral competencies: This is about developing processes to better identify and nurture behavioral competencies needed for teams to play the enabler/broker role for country capacity enhancement. Those behavioral competencies represent a complement to technical skills needed to play an effective role in capacity enhancement. In my opinion, this is where Knowledge Management gets linked to other fields like Change Management and Organizational Behavior. The Bank clearly recognizes that the people are the main source of knowledge and their buy-in is crucial to the success of any KM process in a country or an organization. A firm or a country has to have a clear vision, a holistic strategy and a clear understanding of how component work and affect one another.
Monday, October 13, 2008
World Bank's Knowledge Transfer Process
I was discussing this class with a friend of mine this weekend, and he volunteered to send me a document from the World Bank that outlines what they believe are the key success factors in building knowledge capacity in African countries. According to the World Bank, there are 5 key factors in evaluating the knowledge transfer process:
Form: knowledge can be broadly classified into its two basic forms: explicit (i.e., codified); and
tacit (i.e., the know how that resides ‘between the ears’ of the knowledge holder).16 The latter
is much more difficult to exchange, and may require different transfer platforms. By looking at
knowledge only in its explicit form, one runs the risk of underestimating the true effort required
to transfer knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be passed on relatively easily through a variety of
print and electronic tools. The transfer of the associated tacit dimension, however, typically requires close and often lengthy human interaction. For tacit knowledge to be exchanged effectively, people need to spend time together (i.e., have ‘patience’), develop trust in each other (i.e., ‘listen and hear’), learn more about each other’s contexts (i.e., have ‘empathy’) and jointly facilitate conversions of knowledge between tacit and explicit forms (i.e., be ‘flexible’ and open to ‘adaptation’). Without this comprehensive knowledge transfer, an adopter’s ability to understand, replicate or exploit new knowledge is severely constrained. Whether in tacit or explicit form, the essential element of knowledge transfer is its content.
Direction: the knowledge transfer process can be viewed in two basic directional flows: one-way (i.e., knowledge moves in one direction from the provider to the recipient); or two-way (i.e., a product of a learning exchange between the provider and the recipient). Although the former may be the dominant direction of knowledge flow during a transfer process, the successful adoption and implementation of such knowledge is highly dependent on the bi-directional flow between the provider and the recipient. Without two-way communication, which is predicated on a learning mind-set, there exists only a ‘strategy of hope’, whereby the provider generates ‘useful’ potential applications in the hope that they will eventually be taken up by some recipient.
Diversity: the more people/countries differ from each other in terms of levels of education, environment, culture, etc., the more potential exists to learn from each other. At the same time, the more people/countries differ, the more problematic it becomes for them to communicate or understand each other. This sometimes could lead to the complete breakdown of a knowledge transfer attempt, unless the participants come to the process with a mindset that is based on ‘empathy’, ‘humility’, ‘curiosity’ and willingness to try new approaches that may be out
of the box of the ‘conventional wisdom’.
Targeting: the knowledge transfer process ultimately involves people and institutions. Targeting the right people and the right organizations (and the right individuals within those organizations) is a very important part of the puzzle. This has implications for how Bank staff disseminate knowledge products (e.g., Economic and Sector Work—ESW), and whether the dissemination process is effective in reaching the right people at the right time in the right form. For example, an analytical report may make sense to a counterpart in a ministry, but it may not have an impact on a village leader unless the findings are synthesized (and sometimes translated into the local language) to make them comprehensible to the recipient. This has implications for the way one monitors and evaluates the outcome/impact of the knowledge products.
Sequencing: understanding capacity constraints and knowledge needs, and responding effectively to these needs involves trade-offs in terms of what to do (i.e., designing nuts and bolts procedures for knowledge transfer) and when to do it (i.e., sequencing the provision of such support), and how to link this to the process of institutional/sectoral development.
There are a lot of other interesting things in the World Bank report which I will happily share with you folks, as soon as I am done reading it.
Form: knowledge can be broadly classified into its two basic forms: explicit (i.e., codified); and
tacit (i.e., the know how that resides ‘between the ears’ of the knowledge holder).16 The latter
is much more difficult to exchange, and may require different transfer platforms. By looking at
knowledge only in its explicit form, one runs the risk of underestimating the true effort required
to transfer knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be passed on relatively easily through a variety of
print and electronic tools. The transfer of the associated tacit dimension, however, typically requires close and often lengthy human interaction. For tacit knowledge to be exchanged effectively, people need to spend time together (i.e., have ‘patience’), develop trust in each other (i.e., ‘listen and hear’), learn more about each other’s contexts (i.e., have ‘empathy’) and jointly facilitate conversions of knowledge between tacit and explicit forms (i.e., be ‘flexible’ and open to ‘adaptation’). Without this comprehensive knowledge transfer, an adopter’s ability to understand, replicate or exploit new knowledge is severely constrained. Whether in tacit or explicit form, the essential element of knowledge transfer is its content.
Direction: the knowledge transfer process can be viewed in two basic directional flows: one-way (i.e., knowledge moves in one direction from the provider to the recipient); or two-way (i.e., a product of a learning exchange between the provider and the recipient). Although the former may be the dominant direction of knowledge flow during a transfer process, the successful adoption and implementation of such knowledge is highly dependent on the bi-directional flow between the provider and the recipient. Without two-way communication, which is predicated on a learning mind-set, there exists only a ‘strategy of hope’, whereby the provider generates ‘useful’ potential applications in the hope that they will eventually be taken up by some recipient.
Diversity: the more people/countries differ from each other in terms of levels of education, environment, culture, etc., the more potential exists to learn from each other. At the same time, the more people/countries differ, the more problematic it becomes for them to communicate or understand each other. This sometimes could lead to the complete breakdown of a knowledge transfer attempt, unless the participants come to the process with a mindset that is based on ‘empathy’, ‘humility’, ‘curiosity’ and willingness to try new approaches that may be out
of the box of the ‘conventional wisdom’.
Targeting: the knowledge transfer process ultimately involves people and institutions. Targeting the right people and the right organizations (and the right individuals within those organizations) is a very important part of the puzzle. This has implications for how Bank staff disseminate knowledge products (e.g., Economic and Sector Work—ESW), and whether the dissemination process is effective in reaching the right people at the right time in the right form. For example, an analytical report may make sense to a counterpart in a ministry, but it may not have an impact on a village leader unless the findings are synthesized (and sometimes translated into the local language) to make them comprehensible to the recipient. This has implications for the way one monitors and evaluates the outcome/impact of the knowledge products.
Sequencing: understanding capacity constraints and knowledge needs, and responding effectively to these needs involves trade-offs in terms of what to do (i.e., designing nuts and bolts procedures for knowledge transfer) and when to do it (i.e., sequencing the provision of such support), and how to link this to the process of institutional/sectoral development.
There are a lot of other interesting things in the World Bank report which I will happily share with you folks, as soon as I am done reading it.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Disadvantages of oral communication
In my previous post I elaborated on the skills needed to succeed in transmitting knowledge through oral communication. There are however, a lot of downsides to using this method.
Information can be incomplete. It requires great memory from both the sender and the receiver which can be a lot to ask for. The information intake can be gruesome and challenging for the recipient as a lot rides on his/her ability to process it fast and then apply to real life situations. The incompleteness of the information can also lead to many misconceptions. Their can be lack of details and the transfer does not allow for wiggle room.
As a method it is also very difficult to sustain and maintain over the years. People are naturally biased as they transmit information through the prism of their own beliefs. Innovation is not promoted as the sender expects the receiver to only apply knowledge he/she has been given. At this stage, it is difficult to be creative and think outside the box when facing tough situations...
Combining the potential for distorted messages and the lack of creativity it may indirectly foster, it is difficult to see oral communication being a sustainable way of sharing and creating knowledge. At some point it is imperative to store data and find more efficient ways to communicate to and reach the masses.
Information can be incomplete. It requires great memory from both the sender and the receiver which can be a lot to ask for. The information intake can be gruesome and challenging for the recipient as a lot rides on his/her ability to process it fast and then apply to real life situations. The incompleteness of the information can also lead to many misconceptions. Their can be lack of details and the transfer does not allow for wiggle room.
As a method it is also very difficult to sustain and maintain over the years. People are naturally biased as they transmit information through the prism of their own beliefs. Innovation is not promoted as the sender expects the receiver to only apply knowledge he/she has been given. At this stage, it is difficult to be creative and think outside the box when facing tough situations...
Combining the potential for distorted messages and the lack of creativity it may indirectly foster, it is difficult to see oral communication being a sustainable way of sharing and creating knowledge. At some point it is imperative to store data and find more efficient ways to communicate to and reach the masses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
