1 - I'm having difficulty imagining what the management of tacit knowledge (420-421) would look like in a corporate environment. Would this involve consulting with someone thought to have "expert" knowledge, or asking them to say, write a manual on how they conduct their work, which could then be used in future training? Could knowledge managers essentially just be someone who knows where all of the 'experts' in the office are? My tendency is to argue that tacit knowledge is subjective, and that once it's recorded it becomes explicit knowledge, so we technically can't manage it in the way we would other forms of intellectual capital.
2- I'm meeting this entire argument with a lot of skepticism - having researched a few Knowledge Manger job descriptions, and from reading the arguments presented in the article, I feel like we're once again getting trapped in the DIK (note the lack of W) hierarchy but aren't actually producing anything new. I understand Kebede's argument that "knowledge management" would theoretically encompass more than "information management" but in practice, I think the difference between an "Information Management Professional" and a "Knowledge Manager" would be very little aside from what's printed on their business cards. Do people have any concrete examples, or perhaps a broader understanding, of why we need to start looking at KM vs. IM?
1. What doesn’t the author mean by management in KM? And what does management encompass? Is development included in management? For example, developing knowledge or information from data, i.e. Information Retrieval and Data Mining. The author argues KM is the ultimate concern of IS. But how could we compare the importance of “information/ knowledge development" and KM? And why would KM be more important than Information Retrieval?
2. The author mentions five reasons why IS professionals haven’t put much value on KM. The fourth (lack of expertise) and fifth (lack of tools and frameworks) reasons are quite legitimate. The author tends to generalize IS as one filed using a simple model of the information pyramid. But IS has many specializations, some of which may be very far from the study of KM. How could professionals from other specializations overcome the barriers of lack of expertise, frameworks, and, furthermore, connectedness to their fields to participate in the KM field? I didn’t see any practical solutions from the this paper that could these problems.
3. The author argues that going from data to information to knowledge, the degree of applicability grows. Knowledge is more ready for use than information and data, since it is processed and has higher level of human input. But knowledge’s applicability is also narrowed due to the process, while the raw data would have broader applicability.
1. This article's spotlighting of "other fields" stealing IS concepts, theories, and frameworks has me curious about what other valuable ideas originated in IS but have been developed, publicized, or "claimed" by IT, business, psychology, etc.
2. In section 2.1 Kebede extolls the importance of knowledge and even recognizes the DIKW pyramid and its "foundational" and "canonical" status in IS. Yet he never mentions wisdom. He does discuss the "logical progression" from concerns about data and information to the current focus, in KM, on knowledge, which he says is "at the top of the continuum." This ignores wisdom, but may yet imply that the next generation of IS scholars will explore wisdom. What are some preliminary ideas we can come up with about the shape and scope of IS theory on "wisdom," progressing from the DIK work that's already been done? What might some of the arguments be, or what form might they take, based on the lack of consensus around some of this previous work? Or should we be satisfied with Kebede's claim - backed up by the entirety of post-Cleveland IS scholarship - that knowledge is the top of the DIK continuum?
3. I think Kebede made a pretty good argument for KM in this article, and it helped me interrogate the IS field and its development, along with IS's continuing, expanding overlap with other related fields (such as those mentioned above in #2). However, I want to read and think more about the theoretical and practical parameters of IS/KS. Though the field seems to be moving more away from its library-based origins, I wonder how far we should go into the theoretical, philosophical direction vis a vis training of librarians, archivists, records managers, data managers, and other IS professionals, and how much of this ore theoretical, KM work actually properly belongs in computer science, management, and/or cognitive science. Or is IS/KS the new locus of this type of scholarship, as it is increasingly based on digital systems?
4. I also wonder about discussion of objectivity and obligation re: IS professionals, as they become KS professionals. Even data gathering is subjective, but with each stage "up" the DIK(W) hierarchy, the power of those doing the IS work increases. What additional power is implied by the transition to KM/KS, and how can professionals develop a vocabulary, standards, practices to come to grips with this responsibility, especially regarding calls for "universal information access"? TLDR; can IS works be apolitical? Should we be? How do we deal with this power?
4 - I don't think IS/KM can in any way be neutral, objective or apolitical and I consider living under this myth to be pretty dangerous. To put it succinctly, even no stance is a stance: if I claim to be neutral, and live with the assumption that my IS/KM work is neutral, chances are I won't regularly or critically assess my collecting or management policies, because I'm neutral, right? I'm the ultimate in objective collecting - there's no reason to reassess the way I approach my work because I'm unbiased and apolitical. I think professionals can make informed and open-minded decisions, and as long as everyone remains consciously aware of their own biases and interpretations, we have a better chance of supporting inclusive collecting policies. In the corporate world, this could translate to ensuring the materials you're collecting aren't part of either a confirmation bias (I believe our business is x, and subconsciously am collecting materials that support x), or a more abstract personal bias (what Todd in IT generates is the most useful, I'll work harder to preserve his materials), and in the non-profit or academic world, this is about critically assessing the mission of the institution and making sure that you're still upholding the original mission in place, and if not, if your collecting scope needs to change accordingly, or if you need to re-write your mission. It definitely concerns me how infrequently Information Professionals discuss the power inherent in their positions, and I think this neutrality myth can occasionally provide an excuse not to have difficult discussions around privilege and power in IS/KM.
I remember hashing a lot of this out in journalism classes as an undergrad. Objectivity is definitely a myth; and no stance IS a stance - for sure. Working out the in-between in the challenging (and potentially fun!) part.
1.Throughout, the author claims that knowledge is the ultimate concern of the IS profession. Data and information depend on knowledge for proper interpretation and understanding. In this context, how can wisdom be defined? If wisdom is present in the hierarchy, then will data, information and knowledge depend on wisdom for proper interpretation? So is knowledge management not the ultimate goal as it depends on wisdom?
2. According to the knowledge hierarchy, the three manifestations of information are understood and presented as logically related whereby data evolves to information and information to knowledge as a natural progression towards becoming more valuable, useful, meaningful, and comprehensive. Is information always valuable and useful? Does it not depend on the context? Can invaluable information be integrated into knowledge? Does the value and usefulness decrease?
3. According to the author, the goal of KM in IS is to facilitate human access to information and knowledge for effective decision making and problem solving in work situations as well as everyday life. The IS field is also not limited to serving specific contexts. When the context is not limited or estimated, can the management be effective? If the context is very broad, can it be efficient? As such,the ways of managing information differs in different contexts.
1. On page 417: "Second, IS is affecting its own development by not fully embracing KM which is supposed to be one of the next logical stages of development in the profession." Why is there a lack of embrace of KM within the Information Science field, when the DIKW pyramid is so often disputed and we consider knowledge so important?
2. Secondly, if we agree with Zins' definition of Information Science on page 418 "... the study of mediating perspectives of universal human knowledge... The mediating perspectives include cognitive, social, and technological aspects and conditions, which facilitate the dissemination of human knowledge from the originator to the user." Isn't it strange that a field with the intent on mediating perspectives and dedicate to looking at things in multiple ways would distance or dismiss what is essentially, another perspective on information? Why do that?
3. On page 421: "Knowledge is also social (socially constructed) in that what individuals adopt as perspective and model of the world is a result of social interaction, including acculturation and education which are usually associated with a given discipline or socio-cultural views of a community to which individuals belong." Another paragraph also mentions "KM also uses cultural means such as 'face-to-face meetings, socialization and mentoring' as a tool for managing knowledge." With this in mind, how much do we risk our field being guided/influenced outside our control by other sciences by not claiming KM as being most under our purview?
1. On pg. 1 of the article, Kebede talks about certain companies or groups who avoid engaging with knowledge management out of fear or misunderstanding. If certain groups don't accept knowledge management as the new forerunner of IS, is the result going to be that big of a deal? If KM is embraced, will it dramatically affect the field of IS or will it really just be calling something that already exists by another name?
2. Kebede writes how performing KM is the natural shift from IM. But is it really a concept that needs to be introduced? Don't a lot of companies or groups invested in such concepts already perform or have knowledge management without calling it that?
3. At one point, the author writes how we need to obtain a better understanding of knowledge. But I feel that just bandying about various definitions does not directly lead to a better understanding of a subject. It seems that what is needed is not a better understanding of what knowledge is and how we can translate that, but better methods for capturing that knowledge and recognizing it when we see it. I think most institutions probably already perform a sort of KM, but I don't think that KM needs to replace IM. KM is just taking IM one step further and carrying information a little further in the information life cycle. KM just seems to be the next step in the refining process.
1 The author gives reason of emergence and developments of KM in IS that knowledge as the highest order manifestation of the object of study of IS. The author uses information hierarchy as evidence. What if there's no point of information hierarchy like we discussed in the class? Then how could we conclude that knowledge is important to IS field?
2 The author concludes four factors that leads to emergence and developments of KM in IS: Knowledge as the highest order manifestation of the object of study of IS; Knowledge a the ultimate concern of IS; Experiences of the profession in understanding and managing data and information; Emergence of knowledge society. The author uses the development of knowledge study to demonstrate the importance of knowledge management. What is knowledge management mean? Is that simply managing knowledge? How does knowledge management relate to knowledge?
3 In practical use, how we really differ IM from KM? As the article says, explicit knowledge is a kind of recorded information, and we should focus on management of tacit knowledge. How could this really realize? Is there any knowledge management system? What's the difference and boundary?
1) I had a lot of trouble with this article’s writing style and the absence of any concrete examples of the concepts it discussed, so I was unclear on how Kebede distinguishes between “knowledge management” and sophisticated information science. I would argue that a lot of the “information” that information professionals manage is and has always been “knowledge” by Kebede’s definition of the word, so I am not clear on how he proposes that information science ought to adapt to the different properties of knowledge.
2) It is clear from our other readings that the data-information-knowledge hierarchy is not universally embraced within the information professions. However, Kebede seems to take it as a given, and his argument that there is a distinction between information management and knowledge management hinges on a very orthodox interpretation of the hierarchy. Is his argument mostly a semantic one, or is there more to it than that?
3) As far as I was able to gather, Kebede is arguing that information retrieval systems should provide more context for the information they give the user. Is this an accurate assessment of his point? Is this already something that information scientists are pursuing even without using the term “knowledge management”?
1. In Kebede’s article, he calls for information science to take the lead in the emerging knowledge management field and lists a number of negative consequences if it doesn’t. For example, he states, “by showing reluctance to take the lead in advancing [knowledge management], [information science] has created the situation for some of the other professions to unfairly claim the contributions of IS to the development of KM as if they are their own” (417). While I agree that stealing contributions that aren’t your own is wrong, the feeling I got from this section was more along the lines of “knowledge management is OUR field, not yours.” If that is indeed Kebede’s feeling, is it justified? Couldn’t many different fields working together accomplish more than just information science alone? How much of those “stolen” contributions were actually stolen? Shouldn’t we value the opportunity to work with many different fields and backgrounds in regards to knowledge management?
2. Later in his article, Kebede references Zins, who advocates changing the name of “information science” to that of “knowledge science” (418). Kebede goes to great lengths to demonstrate that knowledge is the combination of data and information, thus the highest order of information science (417-18), and so he agrees with Zins about the appropriateness of the name change. However, is the information science field truly knowledge science? Does switching to “knowledge science” exclude elements of the information field (such as more specific studies regarding information and data), or are they all included under the umbrella of “knowledge”? Similarly, does the label of “information science” not encompass everything the field studies?
3. Kebede spends some time discussing the difference between information and knowledge, saying that knowledge is information that has “personal experience, insights, reflections, and logical reasoning” (420). He furthers this idea by differentiating between tacit and explicit knowledge, and between knowledge management and information management. He says of tacit knowledge that “The management of tacit knowledge is also the main aspect that distinguishes [knowledge management] from [information management]” (421). However if tacit knowledge is knowledge that people carry within themselves and, as Kebede states, “cannot be expressed”, how can it be managed? Surely to manage tacit knowledge you would first have to turn it into explicit knowledge – right? And, if that’s true, what’s the real difference between knowledge management and information management?
1. On page 417, Kebede says that “KM has emerged in IS primarily in response to the need for emphasizing the management of knowledge of the object of study of IS. Information is the object of study of IS and is generally understood as manifesting itself on a continuum that runs from data, to information, to knowledge.” I’ve read this sentence over and over and it still sounds like there is little difference between KM and IS. When it comes down to what “the object of study is,” it seems like Kebede’s need for a definition of KM comes from a strong attachment to the knowledge hierarchy where knowledge is always near the top or at the end. KM and IS share so many elements that I don’t know if there is really a need for KM because honestly I expect KM to happen in the IS field. Simply, I feel like Kebede is depending too much on the knowledge hierarchy to define what KM is.
2. Okay so page 418 Kebede states the argument of his paper is “the emergence of KM is a natural and long-awaited development in IS….” However a little farther down the page he says that “KM has also emerged because knowledge has always been the ultimate concern of the profession.” So, if knowledge has always been a part of the IS profession is KM really a “long-awaited development?” I really don’t think so, because the idea and implementation of knowledge management has always been around, but perhaps not coined as KM. It also doesn’t help his argument when on page 422 he says that “the acceptance of the progression (of KM) has never been universal as a good number of IS professionals have argued that there are no differences between KM and IM.”
3. A problem I had with this article is that Kebede would make blanket statements/quotes/definitions followed by numerous citations by scholars that all appeared to share the same sentiment. Do you really think all these scholars agreed to the exact terms or concepts as Kebede wrote them in his paper? Because there are definitely no two ideas exactly alike in this field, and I would have liked to read footnotes that actually show where these other authors actually agree with him or maybe had a similar idea.
1. In the first reason for why IS doing not play as an influential role as it should be, the author said some scholars regard KM as another term for what they were doing all along. I come up with an idea that if scholars think what they study in relates to KM (but has another name), we cannot affirm that what they have been done was not an engagement in advancing KM. Maybe it is these people established the foundation of KM.
2. Since the goal of KM in IS was “facilitating access to information and knowledge in organizations, groups, communities, business, research, and so on”, KM in IS seems to include KM in other fields. As the author mentioned that KM in other disciplines focused on gaining sustainable competitive advantages or improving organizational learning, I guess the devotion for KM from other disciplines might also part of IS study. Because the KM is an inter-discipline, scholars always related it with other discipline so that KM will play a role in the real world.
3. Finally, the author gave some recommendations in aspects of training and research in order to help develop and sustain the development in KM. However, I think only embarking on professional and academic activities is not a valid solution. Maybe we could do some research on other areas to figure out how they apply KM into practical use. Thus, scholars would pay attention on how to apply KM in the IS industry.
1. "This has resulted in, among others, lack of universal consensus on some of the key issues of KM, including conceptualizations, processes, goals and scope of KM" With the articles that we have been given to read for this class ad others, there seems to be a lot of areas where there is a "lack of universal consensus". Will there ever be a time where consensus on some of these areas can be reached or is it impossible given the abstract nature of these areas of study? 2. "...their definitions of IS that knowledge transfer is the ultimate concern of the profession." This quote comes from a section of this paper that is arguing that information science should really be called knowledge science. Apart from it sounding weird to me, I agree that ultimately IS professionals deal with the entire hierarchy and life cycle of data and culminates in the transference of knowledge. Similar to the final stage of the information life cycle. 3. "The goal of KM in IS is basically to help facilitate human access to information and knowledge for effective decision making and problem solving in work situation as well as every day life." This goal doesn't sound all that different from the goal of IS. Understandably so considering that KM is a field within IS but since the point of this article is the legitimization of KM as a field of study within IS a goal more specific to KM would be more convincing.
Kebede outlines several consequences of IS not having a hand in KM concepts. One of these consequences is that IS contributions to the development of KM has been largely overlooked. While the idea of KM might have originated within IS, is this really a consequence if we as members of the field don’t get credit for it particularly if IS is not fully embracing KM?
Kebede seems to be promoting, as Zins has, that information science should be thought of or even renamed as knowledge science. It feels like he’s getting hung up on the name of the discipline as being a roadblock to the true end game of the science as the study of knowledge. Does he have a valid point in that the name is hindering the advancement of IS in KM or can KM exist within the bounds of IS as we know it?
It seems like there is a disconnect in Kebede’s opinion of KM within the bounds of other disciplines. I mentioned in my first question how IS contributions have to potential to be overlooked in the grand scheme of KM development. But on page 422, Kebede mentions taking the reigns on KM developments in other fields as below the main KM field within IS. How does the author justify this type of mindset that practically mirrors the potential consequences he felt IS would encounter as outlined at the start of the article?
1. How IS knowledge management a disctinct field apart from what information specialists are already doing/studying? And if it isn’t distinct from us, why aren’t we more involved? Seems weird that Kebede would argue that we think it’s the same so we don’t want to be involved.
2. Kebede argues that “knowledge is the highest form of manifestation of the object of study of IS.” So if we don’t buy into the whole information hierarchy then is knowledge management still in our discipline’s wheelhouse?
3. I am much more convinced by Kebede’s argument that knowledge has always been our profession’s ultimate concern. However, I am still confused about the practical benefits of IS participating in the academic study of KS. How would developing an IS approach to the field improve our own?
1. On page 422, Kebede writes that some scholars believe information management and knowledge management are the same. Are they? What would an implementation of each look like and how might they differ?
2. Is knowledge management a fad that will soon fade away in businesses? If the IS field has not fully embraced KM and sought to expand it, does that mean that it should be explored, and that information management is more important?
3. On page 420 Kebede writes that we are in a knowledge society as we put focus our work on knowledge production. What makes a knowledge society different than an information society? What or when did this change occur, if we have been in an information society for awhile?
1. It is an interesting statement that some IS professions do not feel that they have the skill set for knowledge management, particularly since later in the article the author states that the IS profession has more experience and expertise than any other field to develop KM advances. Why is there an apparent contradiction between the two? Is the author missing something that makes these people uneasy to work on KM advancements? Are there articles that came after this that may shed light on why IS is not ready for KM?
2. Sinotte (2004) contends that failure of most computer based information systems designed to help manage information has led the profession to look beyond IM, specifically to KM - p 419. Based upon this statement, I can assume that there is a difference between information management and knowledge management? What is the primary difference? How will knowledge management succeed where information management failed? What were those failures?
3. Can we transfer knowledge? Is it human experience, insight, expertise, etc. that turns information into knowledge? If so, then can knowledge on that subject matter be transferred to a person without the same expertise? Can it only be transferred to person with a similar background? Maybe I'm a bit of old school in believing that knowledge in transferred between the one with knowledge and the one learning, such as that of an internship and a mentor.
1. Kebede states that information science needs to develop a theory of “objective knowledge” but I am skeptical about what Kebede means when he uses that term. My question would be, can there ever really be an “objective knowledge” or is all knowledge situated in some way? I was hoping that Kebede could have further developed this idea as I feel I might have misunderstood it.
2. I am curious if the field of information science can make large contributions to knowledge management as it seems very hard to interpret knowledge in a linguistic way. I am interested in how other areas of science such as neuroscience are dealing with the idea of information retention vs. knowledge. I am wondering if these categories are merely linguistic ways for us to deal with different concepts of information or if something deeper truly is taking place.
3. The author puts forward the idea of recorded knowledge vs. traditional information and I can’t help but think of this as a subjective categorization. The definition of recorded knowledge is that it is “richer than information which is specific to a situation.” Does this mean that a novel can be read as recorded knowledge? I was really confused by this distinction.
1. Gashaw mentions that a group of member considers KM as another term for what they have been doing all along, but it seem in lack of evidence. So what is the key feature that keep KM being regarded as a specialization of IS?
2. The author concludes that “Finally, it will not be overemphasizing if one mentions, as a consequence of IS’s lack of attention to KM, that KM is also being denied the contributions that could have come from years of the accumulated knowledge in data and information management by IS” It is described so antithetical, so is it too subjective?
3. Generally, the author seems put much effort to listing the fact instead of the reason. It is mentioned that IS professionals interested in KM research are left with little choice but to use frameworks and tools developed by the other KM professions. What is the reason that the profession form IS cannot develop the new framework?
1. At the beginning of this article, the author states some problems in KM. In my opinion, KM is an interdisciplinary field and can be considered as a legitimate and distinct field of specialization of IS. I think we haven’t reached a universal agreement so far how to define information and knowledge. It is subjective to decide whether something is information or knowledge. But somehow, in the DIKW model, knowledge is in higher level than information. So maybe the next age is knowledge age after information era and at that time IS may be called knowledge science.
2. The author states that ‘KM has also emerged because knowledge has always been the ultimate concern of the profession (IS)’ (p418). I don’t agree with that. I think knowledge itself is useless unless we add value into it when we use it. So knowledge is not the ultimate concern of IS, and how to use knowledge to solve problems is the ultimate concern of IS. For example, we have management information systems and knowledge management systems. The aim of these systems is to help us make decisions.
3. The author says that ‘the scope of KM should also be broader than the narrowly defined focus of KM in most of the other disciplines interested in KM’ (p421). I know to be broader is a good thing. But does that make KM too difficult to be done?
1. In the beginning of this paper, the author concludes that knowledge managemtn is a natural and long-awaited development in IS from the need for management of knowledge as the highest form of manifestations of the oject of study of IS. My question is what else factors can be considered as distinctions between two studying fields, besides the object? Studying methods?Problem categories?
2. On page 419, the author introduces the quality dimensions revealed in the IS literature. However, some definitions are not very clear. For example, the eighth factor, degree of value (importance or relevance) seems quite similar with degree of connectness and degree of distillation. What is the difference among these factors?
3. On page 420, an opinion stated by Bouthillier and Shearer is cited as "it is our contention that to consider information as the equivalent of explicit knowledge reveals an inadequate assessment of the qualitative dimensions of the various types of information and knowledge created, used and transferred in organizations" So, my question is: what are these qualitative dimensions of the various types of information and knowledge?
1. On page 420, Kebede discusses the idea of "the knowledge society," and the relative urgency in exploring KM issues within these kinds of environments. I would be interested in a few concrete examples of knowledge societies and the variations that could exist within them. Are we living in a knowledge based society? And if yes, what makes that so, and according to what standard? 2. More generally, after reading Kebede's article I'm curious as to characteristics of effecting KM. This could be within the IS field, or outside it. In any regard, what makes for effective KM? 3. What would accepting and establishing KM as a progression in the information hierarchy and a focal point within the field do for the field of IS? Kebede offers this charge (p. 421), but doesn't quite make clear the benefit to doing this. In what ways could this transform the field of IS?
1. In this paper, the author presented a wild range of notions concerning knowledge management. For example, on page #6, Blair claimed that "Although Knowledge Management is not the same as data or information management, data and information retrieval can be important components of it." Since we have pretty familiar with the DIKW model, I'm wondering how wisdom management looks like or it is beyond information management or data management?
2. The author talked a lot about the importance of KM while gave barely attention to the possibility of building one. We have touched the surface of the moon while the IQ of the most IA system that we've ever built is no more than a three-year-old boy. In this sense, how could we expect a KM system can really work as the author put in the paper "Due to this logical progression, KM is going to be here with us, with a far reaching impact on the profession’s core values, processes, tools, technologies and research issues. "?
3. "...The goal of KM in IS is basically to help facilitate human access to information and knowledge for effective decision making and problem solving in work situation as well as every day life. " These words appeared on page #6. I have to say this is a great description, however, not for so-call knowledge management but for an universally known online service called Google. If the point of creating KM is to achieve the goal that Google has done well enough, what the point of KM? Why we need use KM instead of search engines?
1. The 20th century is sometimes referred to as “The Information Age.” Here, Kebede discusses how information alone is no longer enough, that we must synthesize it into knowledge and must manage that knowledge that is produced. Are we entering a “Knowledge Age” where we have as much or more information than we need, and our true task is sorting through it?
2. The DIKW papers often suggested that data or information existed only when put through a human lens. In the modern era of automated data mining and other highly-mechanized collection, is this still true? Is it then the task of knowledge to create a useful structure from this gathered information?
3. On 421 Kebede discusses cultural means “Such as “face-to-face meetings, socializations and mentoring” as key parts of knowledge management. This runs against the increasingly mechanized process of many parts of information services. To what degree does knowledge management rely on these social and human interactions, and is knowledge then a form of social capital?
1. The author raised up the idea of knowledge management and pointed out that KM is a natural and long-awaited development in Information science field. So from database management to information management and to knowledge management, I am thinking does the differences among these management mechanisms exclusively derive from the differences among the scopes of date, information and knowledge? Are there anything else that contribute to the discrepancies?
2. The author cited the arguments from Zins that the name information science is problematic because knowledge is the highest order construction, so it should be called knowledge science, rather than information science. I cannot agree with this point. The highest order construction cannot guarantee the necessity of discovering a new management mechanism for it. From data to information, it is formatting, classifying and grouping involved while from information to knowledge, it is mostly personal interpretation involved. So different people will interpret the information in different way based on different personal experiences, how does that evolve into a knowledge management theory?
3. When talking about the experiences in managing data and information, the author extracted some points from others`- that failure of most computer based information systems to help manage information has led the profession to look beyond IM and specifically to KM. So they seek for KM to get rid of the current failure, but how they ensure the failure existed now can be eliminated by developing KM? Are there any new challenges that could be brought up during KM development?
1. On page 418, Kebede quotes Zins, who posits that we should make the transition from information science to knowledge science because information, being lower in the hierarchy, cannot encompass knowledge. Would this transition fundamentally change the field and if so, is it the type of change the Kebede is advocating for in writing this article?
2. Kebede writes that the information science profession has realized that "knowledge is the most enriched and useful" (p. 419) when considering data, information and knowledge. Given the many definitions of knowledge that we've been offered in our readings, would you consider this to be a legitimate claim? Are we missing something by limiting ourselves to the study of "information" science and should we expand our scope as Zins suggests?
3. Kebede puts forth the importance of knowledge management in managing tacit knowledge. This concept is interesting to me (and was addressed to some extent in last week's reading) in that it seems difficult to actively manage tacit knowledge, or at least tacit knowledge as I understand it. Is this the challenge, though, figuring out how to manage that which is not necessarily explicit but rather in someone's mind?
1. In this article the author describes fourteen different dimensions of quality in IS literature that describe the information hierarchy. Do you agree with these quality dimensions? Do you think that there were any that the author left out or should he have condensed several of them to create fewer? 2. In this article the author describes the scope and goals of Knowledge Management in the Information Science field. He states that these two things are much broader in the IS field than they are for KM in other fields. Do you believe that the reason that the scope and goals are so broad is the interdisciplinary nature of the IS field? 3. In this article the author argues that the Information Science field should focus on Knowledge Management as its main area of interest. Do you think that the IS field should focus mainly on KM? Since the author does state that data and information are both parts that for the basis for KM shouldn’t those two areas be equally important?
1. I think I am still confused on what knowledge management would entail. The author states that it would be similar to information management, but I’m still wondering what those differences are? Are we seeking to physically record this knowledge or are we just trying to ensure that it is passed on to others through teaching or instruction so that it is not lost? Is it ever lost? 2. The idea of tacit knowledge and how we can manage it seems intriguing to me. I like the idea that we could somehow capture this knowledge and pass it to other people or organizations, but if knowledge is the combination of information and experience how can we really capture and store it? Once we begin to record it wouldn’t it become explicit knowledge, or are we managing knowledge out of the recorded context? 3. The author seems concerned that other disciplines are exploring KM while the IS profession is not. It seems that the contribution from other fields would be welcomed in an interdisciplinary field like IS. If knowledge management is the natural evolution of the IS profession, why does the author seem so concerned about who gets the credit for its development? Wouldn’t the IS profession be able to take the models developed and adapt them to a broader information spectrum needed for the profession? Does the IS profession need to be so integrally involved in the development of knowledge development?
1. Kebede is convinced that KM is the inevitable concern of the IS field, and defends this belief by indicating that before the 80’s IS was concerned with data, and then had a significant love affair with information, but since the 90’s has been predominantly concerned with knowledge. I am unfamiliar with this progress in the IS field – what developments in the field verify these claims?
2. Kebede seems particularly concerned that if IS professionals do not concern themselves with KM, both the professionals and the field will fail to receive credit for the influence and involvement they have already had with KM. Is this actually a legitimate concern? What are the consequences of other professions claiming to have made contributions to KM? Does Kebede fear IS professionals will start losing jobs to these other professions? Or something else?
3. I never realized that what distinguished KM was its emphasis on tacit knowledge. Up until now, I feel like we haven’t really discussed managing anything but explicit knowledge, knowledge as a thing recorded, etc… This is a totally intriguing idea. What does the organization and management of tacit knowledge look like? And how is it that once you record tacit knowledge, it does not become explicit knowledge? Because mustn’t you first record it in order to manage it?
1. Kebede argues that since DIK is a continuum, knowledge is the highest manifestation and therefore deserves its own discipline. But many of the scholars in Zins' study disagree, with good reason, that DIK truly is a continuum. What is Kebede's answer to their arguments against a continuum?
2. Kebede mentions Oluic-Vukovic's argument that the main concern of IS is not providing information but the consumption of knowledge. Many feel that what drives knowledge is information combined with human experience. If we accept one individual's perception of knowledge as a piece of information combined with their own experience, aren't we losing opportunities to expand knowledge and information?
3. When discussing relevant developments that have led to the evolution of KM, the author refers to the broader application of ICT's. What exactly are ICT's?
4. Don't authors have to proofread their work for grammatical errors before being published?
1. If we accept Kebede's argument that "knowledge [is] the highest order manifestation of the object of study of IS" and recognize KM as the ultimate goal of IS, does that imply that we must also accept the possibility that the name "Information Science" would need to be changed to "Knowledge Science"?
2. Kebede wrote that some people oppose the recognition of KM because they understand it just to be a different name for a field that already exists: IM. Given the controversy around the DIK[W] hierarchy, I am not surprised that there is opposition to formally adopt KM into IS. How and why did Information Science become the name of our profession rather than Knowledge Science?
3. "First, in the absence of significant contribution from IS, other professions are influencing developments in KM in the direction that is in line with their traditions and perspectives." Can KM be really influenced in the wrong direction, and isn't the responsibility to assimilate the information-related findings of other fields one of the main values of IS? In other words, is the influence of developments in KM by other fields really a bad thing?
1. Question of semantics: Kebede, in an explanation of tacit knowledge, claims that it is "that aspect of human knowledge which *cannot* be expressed in explicit, objective form" (420). I have a hard time understanding how such knowledge can exist. Could the author perhaps mean that this tacit knowledge simply hasn't been expressed in an explicit form, or is the use of "cannot" intentional?
2. Perhaps I'm dense or unimaginative, but I don't quite see how knowledge management is so radically different from or an enterprise wholly separate from information science. It seems more to be the logical progression of a field in which members seek to satisfy the information needs of a community.
3. In an information management system, it makes sense to locate available information on a central searchable database, like a corporate intranet, to allow it to be easily categorized, classified, and consumed. How would one go about collecting the tacit information that the author states is the crux of a knowledge management system?
1 - I'm having difficulty imagining what the management of tacit knowledge (420-421) would look like in a corporate environment. Would this involve consulting with someone thought to have "expert" knowledge, or asking them to say, write a manual on how they conduct their work, which could then be used in future training? Could knowledge managers essentially just be someone who knows where all of the 'experts' in the office are? My tendency is to argue that tacit knowledge is subjective, and that once it's recorded it becomes explicit knowledge, so we technically can't manage it in the way we would other forms of intellectual capital.
ReplyDelete2- I'm meeting this entire argument with a lot of skepticism - having researched a few Knowledge Manger job descriptions, and from reading the arguments presented in the article, I feel like we're once again getting trapped in the DIK (note the lack of W) hierarchy but aren't actually producing anything new. I understand Kebede's argument that "knowledge management" would theoretically encompass more than "information management" but in practice, I think the difference between an "Information Management Professional" and a "Knowledge Manager" would be very little aside from what's printed on their business cards. Do people have any concrete examples, or perhaps a broader understanding, of why we need to start looking at KM vs. IM?
1. What doesn’t the author mean by management in KM? And what does management encompass? Is development included in management? For example, developing knowledge or information from data, i.e. Information Retrieval and Data Mining. The author argues KM is the ultimate concern of IS. But how could we compare the importance of “information/ knowledge development" and KM? And why would KM be more important than Information Retrieval?
ReplyDelete2. The author mentions five reasons why IS professionals haven’t put much value on KM. The fourth (lack of expertise) and fifth (lack of tools and frameworks) reasons are quite legitimate. The author tends to generalize IS as one filed using a simple model of the information pyramid. But IS has many specializations, some of which may be very far from the study of KM. How could professionals from other specializations overcome the barriers of lack of expertise, frameworks, and, furthermore, connectedness to their fields to participate in the KM field? I didn’t see any practical solutions from the this paper that could these problems.
3. The author argues that going from data to information to knowledge, the degree of applicability grows. Knowledge is more ready for use than information and data, since it is processed and has higher level of human input. But knowledge’s applicability is also narrowed due to the process, while the raw data would have broader applicability.
1. This article's spotlighting of "other fields" stealing IS concepts, theories, and frameworks has me curious about what other valuable ideas originated in IS but have been developed, publicized, or "claimed" by IT, business, psychology, etc.
ReplyDelete2. In section 2.1 Kebede extolls the importance of knowledge and even recognizes the DIKW pyramid and its "foundational" and "canonical" status in IS. Yet he never mentions wisdom. He does discuss the "logical progression" from concerns about data and information to the current focus, in KM, on knowledge, which he says is "at the top of the continuum." This ignores wisdom, but may yet imply that the next generation of IS scholars will explore wisdom. What are some preliminary ideas we can come up with about the shape and scope of IS theory on "wisdom," progressing from the DIK work that's already been done? What might some of the arguments be, or what form might they take, based on the lack of consensus around some of this previous work? Or should we be satisfied with Kebede's claim - backed up by the entirety of post-Cleveland IS scholarship - that knowledge is the top of the DIK continuum?
3. I think Kebede made a pretty good argument for KM in this article, and it helped me interrogate the IS field and its development, along with IS's continuing, expanding overlap with other related fields (such as those mentioned above in #2). However, I want to read and think more about the theoretical and practical parameters of IS/KS. Though the field seems to be moving more away from its library-based origins, I wonder how far we should go into the theoretical, philosophical direction vis a vis training of librarians, archivists, records managers, data managers, and other IS professionals, and how much of this ore theoretical, KM work actually properly belongs in computer science, management, and/or cognitive science. Or is IS/KS the new locus of this type of scholarship, as it is increasingly based on digital systems?
4. I also wonder about discussion of objectivity and obligation re: IS professionals, as they become KS professionals. Even data gathering is subjective, but with each stage "up" the DIK(W) hierarchy, the power of those doing the IS work increases. What additional power is implied by the transition to KM/KS, and how can professionals develop a vocabulary, standards, practices to come to grips with this responsibility, especially regarding calls for "universal information access"? TLDR; can IS works be apolitical? Should we be? How do we deal with this power?
4 - I don't think IS/KM can in any way be neutral, objective or apolitical and I consider living under this myth to be pretty dangerous. To put it succinctly, even no stance is a stance: if I claim to be neutral, and live with the assumption that my IS/KM work is neutral, chances are I won't regularly or critically assess my collecting or management policies, because I'm neutral, right? I'm the ultimate in objective collecting - there's no reason to reassess the way I approach my work because I'm unbiased and apolitical. I think professionals can make informed and open-minded decisions, and as long as everyone remains consciously aware of their own biases and interpretations, we have a better chance of supporting inclusive collecting policies. In the corporate world, this could translate to ensuring the materials you're collecting aren't part of either a confirmation bias (I believe our business is x, and subconsciously am collecting materials that support x), or a more abstract personal bias (what Todd in IT generates is the most useful, I'll work harder to preserve his materials), and in the non-profit or academic world, this is about critically assessing the mission of the institution and making sure that you're still upholding the original mission in place, and if not, if your collecting scope needs to change accordingly, or if you need to re-write your mission. It definitely concerns me how infrequently Information Professionals discuss the power inherent in their positions, and I think this neutrality myth can occasionally provide an excuse not to have difficult discussions around privilege and power in IS/KM.
DeleteI remember hashing a lot of this out in journalism classes as an undergrad. Objectivity is definitely a myth; and no stance IS a stance - for sure. Working out the in-between in the challenging (and potentially fun!) part.
Delete1.Throughout, the author claims that knowledge is the ultimate concern of the IS profession. Data and information depend on knowledge for proper interpretation and understanding. In this context, how can wisdom be defined? If wisdom is present in the hierarchy, then will data, information and knowledge depend on wisdom for proper interpretation? So is knowledge management not the ultimate goal as it depends on wisdom?
ReplyDelete2. According to the knowledge hierarchy, the three manifestations of information are understood and presented as logically related whereby data evolves to information and information to knowledge as a natural progression towards becoming more valuable, useful, meaningful, and comprehensive. Is information always valuable and useful? Does it not depend on the context? Can invaluable information be integrated into knowledge? Does the value and usefulness decrease?
3. According to the author, the goal of KM in IS is to facilitate human access to information and knowledge for effective decision making and problem solving in work situations as well as everyday life. The IS field is also not limited to serving specific contexts. When the context is not limited or estimated, can the management be effective? If the context is very broad, can it be efficient? As such,the ways of managing information differs in different contexts.
1. On page 417: "Second, IS is affecting its own development by not fully embracing KM which is supposed to be one of the next logical stages of development in the profession." Why is there a lack of embrace of KM within the Information Science field, when the DIKW pyramid is so often disputed and we consider knowledge so important?
ReplyDelete2. Secondly, if we agree with Zins' definition of Information Science on page 418 "... the study of mediating perspectives of universal human knowledge... The mediating perspectives include cognitive, social, and technological aspects and conditions, which facilitate the dissemination of human knowledge from the originator to the user." Isn't it strange that a field with the intent on mediating perspectives and dedicate to looking at things in multiple ways would distance or dismiss what is essentially, another perspective on information? Why do that?
3. On page 421: "Knowledge is also social (socially constructed) in that what individuals adopt as perspective and model of the world is a result of social interaction, including acculturation and education which are usually associated with a given discipline or socio-cultural views of a community to which individuals belong." Another paragraph also mentions "KM also uses cultural means such as 'face-to-face meetings, socialization and mentoring' as a tool for managing knowledge." With this in mind, how much do we risk our field being guided/influenced outside our control by other sciences by not claiming KM as being most under our purview?
1. On pg. 1 of the article, Kebede talks about certain companies or groups who avoid engaging with knowledge management out of fear or misunderstanding. If certain groups don't accept knowledge management as the new forerunner of IS, is the result going to be that big of a deal? If KM is embraced, will it dramatically affect the field of IS or will it really just be calling something that already exists by another name?
ReplyDelete2. Kebede writes how performing KM is the natural shift from IM. But is it really a concept that needs to be introduced? Don't a lot of companies or groups invested in such concepts already perform or have knowledge management without calling it that?
3. At one point, the author writes how we need to obtain a better understanding of knowledge. But I feel that just bandying about various definitions does not directly lead to a better understanding of a subject. It seems that what is needed is not a better understanding of what knowledge is and how we can translate that, but better methods for capturing that knowledge and recognizing it when we see it. I think most institutions probably already perform a sort of KM, but I don't think that KM needs to replace IM. KM is just taking IM one step further and carrying information a little further in the information life cycle. KM just seems to be the next step in the refining process.
1 The author gives reason of emergence and developments of KM in IS that knowledge as the highest order manifestation of the object of study of IS. The author uses information hierarchy as evidence. What if there's no point of information hierarchy like we discussed in the class? Then how could we conclude that knowledge is important to IS field?
ReplyDelete2 The author concludes four factors that leads to emergence and developments of KM in IS: Knowledge as the highest order manifestation of the object of study of IS; Knowledge a the ultimate concern of IS; Experiences of the profession in understanding and managing data and information; Emergence of knowledge society. The author uses the development of knowledge study to demonstrate the importance of knowledge management. What is knowledge management mean? Is that simply managing knowledge? How does knowledge management relate to knowledge?
3 In practical use, how we really differ IM from KM? As the article says, explicit knowledge is a kind of recorded information, and we should focus on management of tacit knowledge. How could this really realize? Is there any knowledge management system? What's the difference and boundary?
1) I had a lot of trouble with this article’s writing style and the absence of any concrete examples of the concepts it discussed, so I was unclear on how Kebede distinguishes between “knowledge management” and sophisticated information science. I would argue that a lot of the “information” that information professionals manage is and has always been “knowledge” by Kebede’s definition of the word, so I am not clear on how he proposes that information science ought to adapt to the different properties of knowledge.
ReplyDelete2) It is clear from our other readings that the data-information-knowledge hierarchy is not universally embraced within the information professions. However, Kebede seems to take it as a given, and his argument that there is a distinction between information management and knowledge management hinges on a very orthodox interpretation of the hierarchy. Is his argument mostly a semantic one, or is there more to it than that?
3) As far as I was able to gather, Kebede is arguing that information retrieval systems should provide more context for the information they give the user. Is this an accurate assessment of his point? Is this already something that information scientists are pursuing even without using the term “knowledge management”?
1. In Kebede’s article, he calls for information science to take the lead in the emerging knowledge management field and lists a number of negative consequences if it doesn’t. For example, he states, “by showing reluctance to take the lead in advancing [knowledge management], [information science] has created the situation for some of the other professions to unfairly claim the contributions of IS to the development of KM as if they are their own” (417). While I agree that stealing contributions that aren’t your own is wrong, the feeling I got from this section was more along the lines of “knowledge management is OUR field, not yours.” If that is indeed Kebede’s feeling, is it justified? Couldn’t many different fields working together accomplish more than just information science alone? How much of those “stolen” contributions were actually stolen? Shouldn’t we value the opportunity to work with many different fields and backgrounds in regards to knowledge management?
ReplyDelete2. Later in his article, Kebede references Zins, who advocates changing the name of “information science” to that of “knowledge science” (418). Kebede goes to great lengths to demonstrate that knowledge is the combination of data and information, thus the highest order of information science (417-18), and so he agrees with Zins about the appropriateness of the name change. However, is the information science field truly knowledge science? Does switching to “knowledge science” exclude elements of the information field (such as more specific studies regarding information and data), or are they all included under the umbrella of “knowledge”? Similarly, does the label of “information science” not encompass everything the field studies?
3. Kebede spends some time discussing the difference between information and knowledge, saying that knowledge is information that has “personal experience, insights, reflections, and logical reasoning” (420). He furthers this idea by differentiating between tacit and explicit knowledge, and between knowledge management and information management. He says of tacit knowledge that “The management of tacit knowledge is also the main aspect that distinguishes [knowledge management] from [information management]” (421). However if tacit knowledge is knowledge that people carry within themselves and, as Kebede states, “cannot be expressed”, how can it be managed? Surely to manage tacit knowledge you would first have to turn it into explicit knowledge – right? And, if that’s true, what’s the real difference between knowledge management and information management?
1. On page 417, Kebede says that “KM has emerged in IS primarily in response to the need for emphasizing the management of knowledge of the object of study of IS. Information is the object of study of IS and is generally understood as manifesting itself on a continuum that runs from data, to information, to knowledge.” I’ve read this sentence over and over and it still sounds like there is little difference between KM and IS. When it comes down to what “the object of study is,” it seems like Kebede’s need for a definition of KM comes from a strong attachment to the knowledge hierarchy where knowledge is always near the top or at the end. KM and IS share so many elements that I don’t know if there is really a need for KM because honestly I expect KM to happen in the IS field. Simply, I feel like Kebede is depending too much on the knowledge hierarchy to define what KM is.
ReplyDelete2. Okay so page 418 Kebede states the argument of his paper is “the emergence of KM is a natural and long-awaited development in IS….” However a little farther down the page he says that “KM has also emerged because knowledge has always been the ultimate concern of the profession.” So, if knowledge has always been a part of the IS profession is KM really a “long-awaited development?” I really don’t think so, because the idea and implementation of knowledge management has always been around, but perhaps not coined as KM. It also doesn’t help his argument when on page 422 he says that “the acceptance of the progression (of KM) has never been universal as a good number of IS professionals have argued that there are no differences between KM and IM.”
3. A problem I had with this article is that Kebede would make blanket statements/quotes/definitions followed by numerous citations by scholars that all appeared to share the same sentiment. Do you really think all these scholars agreed to the exact terms or concepts as Kebede wrote them in his paper? Because there are definitely no two ideas exactly alike in this field, and I would have liked to read footnotes that actually show where these other authors actually agree with him or maybe had a similar idea.
1. In the first reason for why IS doing not play as an influential role as it should be, the author said some scholars regard KM as another term for what they were doing all along. I come up with an idea that if scholars think what they study in relates to KM (but has another name), we cannot affirm that what they have been done was not an engagement in advancing KM. Maybe it is these people established the foundation of KM.
ReplyDelete2. Since the goal of KM in IS was “facilitating access to information and knowledge in organizations, groups, communities, business, research, and so on”, KM in IS seems to include KM in other fields. As the author mentioned that KM in other disciplines focused on gaining sustainable competitive advantages or improving organizational learning, I guess the devotion for KM from other disciplines might also part of IS study. Because the KM is an inter-discipline, scholars always related it with other discipline so that KM will play a role in the real world.
3. Finally, the author gave some recommendations in aspects of training and research in order to help develop and sustain the development in KM. However, I think only embarking on professional and academic activities is not a valid solution. Maybe we could do some research on other areas to figure out how they apply KM into practical use. Thus, scholars would pay attention on how to apply KM in the IS industry.
1. "This has resulted in, among others, lack of universal consensus on some of the key issues of KM, including conceptualizations, processes, goals and scope of KM" With the articles that we have been given to read for this class ad others, there seems to be a lot of areas where there is a "lack of universal consensus". Will there ever be a time where consensus on some of these areas can be reached or is it impossible given the abstract nature of these areas of study?
ReplyDelete2. "...their definitions of IS that knowledge transfer is the ultimate concern of the profession." This quote comes from a section of this paper that is arguing that information science should really be called knowledge science. Apart from it sounding weird to me, I agree that ultimately IS professionals deal with the entire hierarchy and life cycle of data and culminates in the transference of knowledge. Similar to the final stage of the information life cycle.
3. "The goal of KM in IS is basically to help facilitate human access to information and knowledge for effective decision making and problem solving in work situation as well as every day life." This goal doesn't sound all that different from the goal of IS. Understandably so considering that KM is a field within IS but since the point of this article is the legitimization of KM as a field of study within IS a goal more specific to KM would be more convincing.
Kebede outlines several consequences of IS not having a hand in KM concepts. One of these consequences is that IS contributions to the development of KM has been largely overlooked. While the idea of KM might have originated within IS, is this really a consequence if we as members of the field don’t get credit for it particularly if IS is not fully embracing KM?
ReplyDeleteKebede seems to be promoting, as Zins has, that information science should be thought of or even renamed as knowledge science. It feels like he’s getting hung up on the name of the discipline as being a roadblock to the true end game of the science as the study of knowledge. Does he have a valid point in that the name is hindering the advancement of IS in KM or can KM exist within the bounds of IS as we know it?
It seems like there is a disconnect in Kebede’s opinion of KM within the bounds of other disciplines. I mentioned in my first question how IS contributions have to potential to be overlooked in the grand scheme of KM development. But on page 422, Kebede mentions taking the reigns on KM developments in other fields as below the main KM field within IS. How does the author justify this type of mindset that practically mirrors the potential consequences he felt IS would encounter as outlined at the start of the article?
1. How IS knowledge management a disctinct field apart from what information specialists are already doing/studying? And if it isn’t distinct from us, why aren’t we more involved? Seems weird that Kebede would argue that we think it’s the same so we don’t want to be involved.
ReplyDelete2. Kebede argues that “knowledge is the highest form of manifestation of the object of study of IS.” So if we don’t buy into the whole information hierarchy then is knowledge management still in our discipline’s wheelhouse?
3. I am much more convinced by Kebede’s argument that knowledge has always been our profession’s ultimate concern. However, I am still confused about the practical benefits of IS participating in the academic study of KS. How would developing an IS approach to the field improve our own?
1. On page 422, Kebede writes that some scholars believe information management and knowledge management are the same. Are they? What would an implementation of each look like and how might they differ?
ReplyDelete2. Is knowledge management a fad that will soon fade away in businesses? If the IS field has not fully embraced KM and sought to expand it, does that mean that it should be explored, and that information management is more important?
3. On page 420 Kebede writes that we are in a knowledge society as we put focus our work on knowledge production. What makes a knowledge society different than an information society? What or when did this change occur, if we have been in an information society for awhile?
1. It is an interesting statement that some IS professions do not feel that they have the skill set for knowledge management, particularly since later in the article the author states that the IS profession has more experience and expertise than any other field to develop KM advances. Why is there an apparent contradiction between the two? Is the author missing something that makes these people uneasy to work on KM advancements? Are there articles that came after this that may shed light on why IS is not ready for KM?
ReplyDelete2. Sinotte (2004) contends that failure of most computer based information systems designed to help manage information has led the profession to look beyond IM, specifically to KM - p 419. Based upon this statement, I can assume that there is a difference between information management and knowledge management? What is the primary difference? How will knowledge management succeed where information management failed? What were those failures?
3. Can we transfer knowledge? Is it human experience, insight, expertise, etc. that turns information into knowledge? If so, then can knowledge on that subject matter be transferred to a person without the same expertise? Can it only be transferred to person with a similar background? Maybe I'm a bit of old school in believing that knowledge in transferred between the one with knowledge and the one learning, such as that of an internship and a mentor.
1. Kebede states that information science needs to develop a theory of “objective knowledge” but I am skeptical about what Kebede means when he uses that term. My question would be, can there ever really be an “objective knowledge” or is all knowledge situated in some way? I was hoping that Kebede could have further developed this idea as I feel I might have misunderstood it.
ReplyDelete2. I am curious if the field of information science can make large contributions to knowledge management as it seems very hard to interpret knowledge in a linguistic way. I am interested in how other areas of science such as neuroscience are dealing with the idea of information retention vs. knowledge. I am wondering if these categories are merely linguistic ways for us to deal with different concepts of information or if something deeper truly is taking place.
3. The author puts forward the idea of recorded knowledge vs. traditional information and I can’t help but think of this as a subjective categorization. The definition of recorded knowledge is that it is “richer than information which is specific to a situation.” Does this mean that a novel can be read as recorded knowledge? I was really confused by this distinction.
1. Gashaw mentions that a group of member considers KM as another term for what they have been doing all along, but it seem in lack of evidence. So what is the key feature that keep KM being regarded as a specialization of IS?
ReplyDelete2. The author concludes that “Finally, it will not be overemphasizing if one mentions, as a consequence of IS’s lack of attention to KM, that KM is also being denied the contributions that could have come from years of the accumulated knowledge in data and information management by IS” It is described so antithetical, so is it too subjective?
3. Generally, the author seems put much effort to listing the fact instead of the reason. It is mentioned that IS professionals interested in KM research are left with little choice but to use frameworks and tools developed by the other KM professions. What is the reason that the profession form IS cannot develop the new framework?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. At the beginning of this article, the author states some problems in KM. In my opinion, KM is an interdisciplinary field and can be considered as a legitimate and distinct field of specialization of IS. I think we haven’t reached a universal agreement so far how to define information and knowledge. It is subjective to decide whether something is information or knowledge. But somehow, in the DIKW model, knowledge is in higher level than information. So maybe the next age is knowledge age after information era and at that time IS may be called knowledge science.
ReplyDelete2. The author states that ‘KM has also emerged because knowledge has always been the ultimate concern of the profession (IS)’ (p418). I don’t agree with that. I think knowledge itself is useless unless we add value into it when we use it. So knowledge is not the ultimate concern of IS, and how to use knowledge to solve problems is the ultimate concern of IS. For example, we have management information systems and knowledge management systems. The aim of these systems is to help us make decisions.
3. The author says that ‘the scope of KM should also be broader than the narrowly defined focus of KM in most of the other disciplines interested in KM’ (p421). I know to be broader is a good thing. But does that make KM too difficult to be done?
1. In the beginning of this paper, the author concludes that knowledge managemtn is a natural and long-awaited development in IS from the need for management of knowledge as the highest form of manifestations of the oject of study of IS. My question is what else factors can be considered as distinctions between two studying fields, besides the object? Studying methods?Problem categories?
ReplyDelete2. On page 419, the author introduces the quality dimensions revealed in the IS literature. However, some definitions are not very clear. For example, the eighth factor, degree of value (importance or relevance) seems quite similar with degree of connectness and degree of distillation. What is the difference among these factors?
3. On page 420, an opinion stated by Bouthillier and Shearer is cited as "it is our contention that to consider information as the equivalent of explicit knowledge reveals an inadequate assessment of the qualitative dimensions of the various types of information and knowledge created, used and transferred in organizations" So, my question is: what are these qualitative dimensions of the various types of information and knowledge?
1. On page 420, Kebede discusses the idea of "the knowledge society," and the relative urgency in exploring KM issues within these kinds of environments. I would be interested in a few concrete examples of knowledge societies and the variations that could exist within them. Are we living in a knowledge based society? And if yes, what makes that so, and according to what standard?
ReplyDelete2. More generally, after reading Kebede's article I'm curious as to characteristics of effecting KM. This could be within the IS field, or outside it. In any regard, what makes for effective KM?
3. What would accepting and establishing KM as a progression in the information hierarchy and a focal point within the field do for the field of IS? Kebede offers this charge (p. 421), but doesn't quite make clear the benefit to doing this. In what ways could this transform the field of IS?
1. In this paper, the author presented a wild range of notions concerning knowledge management. For example, on page #6, Blair claimed that "Although Knowledge Management is not the same as data or information management, data and information retrieval can be important components of it." Since we have pretty familiar with the DIKW model, I'm wondering how wisdom management looks like or it is beyond information management or data management?
ReplyDelete2. The author talked a lot about the importance of KM while gave barely attention to the possibility of building one. We have touched the surface of the moon while the IQ of the most IA system that we've ever built is no more than a three-year-old boy. In this sense, how could we expect a KM system can really work as the author put in the paper "Due to this logical progression, KM is going to be here with us, with a far reaching impact on the profession’s core values, processes, tools, technologies and research issues. "?
3. "...The goal of KM in IS is basically to help facilitate human access to information and knowledge for effective decision making and problem solving in work situation as well as every day life. " These words appeared on page #6. I have to say this is a great description, however, not for so-call knowledge management but for an universally known online service called Google. If the point of creating KM is to achieve the goal that Google has done well enough, what the point of KM? Why we need use KM instead of search engines?
1. The 20th century is sometimes referred to as “The Information Age.” Here, Kebede discusses how information alone is no longer enough, that we must synthesize it into knowledge and must manage that knowledge that is produced. Are we entering a “Knowledge Age” where we have as much or more information than we need, and our true task is sorting through it?
ReplyDelete2. The DIKW papers often suggested that data or information existed only when put through a human lens. In the modern era of automated data mining and other highly-mechanized collection, is this still true? Is it then the task of knowledge to create a useful structure from this gathered information?
3. On 421 Kebede discusses cultural means “Such as “face-to-face meetings, socializations and mentoring” as key parts of knowledge management. This runs against the increasingly mechanized process of many parts of information services. To what degree does knowledge management rely on these social and human interactions, and is knowledge then a form of social capital?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The author raised up the idea of knowledge management and pointed out that KM is a natural and long-awaited development in Information science field. So from database management to information management and to knowledge management, I am thinking does the differences among these management mechanisms exclusively derive from the differences among the scopes of date, information and knowledge? Are there anything else that contribute to the discrepancies?
ReplyDelete2. The author cited the arguments from Zins that the name information science is problematic because knowledge is the highest order construction, so it should be called knowledge science, rather than information science. I cannot agree with this point. The highest order construction cannot guarantee the necessity of discovering a new management mechanism for it. From data to information, it is formatting, classifying and grouping involved while from information to knowledge, it is mostly personal interpretation involved. So different people will interpret the information in different way based on different personal experiences, how does that evolve into a knowledge management theory?
3. When talking about the experiences in managing data and information, the author extracted some points from others`- that failure of most computer based information systems to help manage information has led the profession to look beyond IM and specifically to KM. So they seek for KM to get rid of the current failure, but how they ensure the failure existed now can be eliminated by developing KM? Are there any new challenges that could be brought up during KM development?
1. On page 418, Kebede quotes Zins, who posits that we should make the transition from information science to knowledge science because information, being lower in the hierarchy, cannot encompass knowledge. Would this transition fundamentally change the field and if so, is it the type of change the Kebede is advocating for in writing this article?
ReplyDelete2. Kebede writes that the information science profession has realized that "knowledge is the most enriched and useful" (p. 419) when considering data, information and knowledge. Given the many definitions of knowledge that we've been offered in our readings, would you consider this to be a legitimate claim? Are we missing something by limiting ourselves to the study of "information" science and should we expand our scope as Zins suggests?
3. Kebede puts forth the importance of knowledge management in managing tacit knowledge. This concept is interesting to me (and was addressed to some extent in last week's reading) in that it seems difficult to actively manage tacit knowledge, or at least tacit knowledge as I understand it. Is this the challenge, though, figuring out how to manage that which is not necessarily explicit but rather in someone's mind?
1. In this article the author describes fourteen different dimensions of quality in IS literature that describe the information hierarchy. Do you agree with these quality dimensions? Do you think that there were any that the author left out or should he have condensed several of them to create fewer?
ReplyDelete2. In this article the author describes the scope and goals of Knowledge Management in the Information Science field. He states that these two things are much broader in the IS field than they are for KM in other fields. Do you believe that the reason that the scope and goals are so broad is the interdisciplinary nature of the IS field?
3. In this article the author argues that the Information Science field should focus on Knowledge Management as its main area of interest. Do you think that the IS field should focus mainly on KM? Since the author does state that data and information are both parts that for the basis for KM shouldn’t those two areas be equally important?
1. I think I am still confused on what knowledge management would entail. The author states that it would be similar to information management, but I’m still wondering what those differences are? Are we seeking to physically record this knowledge or are we just trying to ensure that it is passed on to others through teaching or instruction so that it is not lost? Is it ever lost?
ReplyDelete2. The idea of tacit knowledge and how we can manage it seems intriguing to me. I like the idea that we could somehow capture this knowledge and pass it to other people or organizations, but if knowledge is the combination of information and experience how can we really capture and store it? Once we begin to record it wouldn’t it become explicit knowledge, or are we managing knowledge out of the recorded context?
3. The author seems concerned that other disciplines are exploring KM while the IS profession is not. It seems that the contribution from other fields would be welcomed in an interdisciplinary field like IS. If knowledge management is the natural evolution of the IS profession, why does the author seem so concerned about who gets the credit for its development? Wouldn’t the IS profession be able to take the models developed and adapt them to a broader information spectrum needed for the profession? Does the IS profession need to be so integrally involved in the development of knowledge development?
1. Kebede is convinced that KM is the inevitable concern of the IS field, and defends this belief by indicating that before the 80’s IS was concerned with data, and then had a significant love affair with information, but since the 90’s has been predominantly concerned with knowledge. I am unfamiliar with this progress in the IS field – what developments in the field verify these claims?
ReplyDelete2. Kebede seems particularly concerned that if IS professionals do not concern themselves with KM, both the professionals and the field will fail to receive credit for the influence and involvement they have already had with KM. Is this actually a legitimate concern? What are the consequences of other professions claiming to have made contributions to KM? Does Kebede fear IS professionals will start losing jobs to these other professions? Or something else?
3. I never realized that what distinguished KM was its emphasis on tacit knowledge. Up until now, I feel like we haven’t really discussed managing anything but explicit knowledge, knowledge as a thing recorded, etc… This is a totally intriguing idea. What does the organization and management of tacit knowledge look like? And how is it that once you record tacit knowledge, it does not become explicit knowledge? Because mustn’t you first record it in order to manage it?
1. Kebede argues that since DIK is a continuum, knowledge is the highest manifestation and therefore deserves its own discipline. But many of the scholars in Zins' study disagree, with good reason, that DIK truly is a continuum. What is Kebede's answer to their arguments against a continuum?
ReplyDelete2. Kebede mentions Oluic-Vukovic's argument that the main concern of IS is not providing information but the consumption of knowledge. Many feel that what drives knowledge is information combined with human experience. If we accept one individual's perception of knowledge as a piece of information combined with their own experience, aren't we losing opportunities to expand knowledge and information?
3. When discussing relevant developments that have led to the evolution of KM, the author refers to the broader application of ICT's. What exactly are ICT's?
4. Don't authors have to proofread their work for grammatical errors before being published?
1. If we accept Kebede's argument that "knowledge [is] the highest order manifestation of the object of study of IS" and recognize KM as the ultimate goal of IS, does that imply that we must also accept the possibility that the name "Information Science" would need to be changed to "Knowledge Science"?
ReplyDelete2. Kebede wrote that some people oppose the recognition of KM because they understand it just to be a different name for a field that already exists: IM. Given the controversy around the DIK[W] hierarchy, I am not surprised that there is opposition to formally adopt KM into IS. How and why did Information Science become the name of our profession rather than Knowledge Science?
3. "First, in the absence of significant contribution from IS, other professions are influencing developments in KM in the direction that is in line with their traditions and perspectives." Can KM be really influenced in the wrong direction, and isn't the responsibility to assimilate the information-related findings of other fields one of the main values of IS? In other words, is the influence of developments in KM by other fields really a bad thing?
1. Question of semantics: Kebede, in an explanation of tacit knowledge, claims that it is "that aspect of human knowledge which *cannot* be expressed in explicit, objective form" (420). I have a hard time understanding how such knowledge can exist. Could the author perhaps mean that this tacit knowledge simply hasn't been expressed in an explicit form, or is the use of "cannot" intentional?
ReplyDelete2. Perhaps I'm dense or unimaginative, but I don't quite see how knowledge management is so radically different from or an enterprise wholly separate from information science. It seems more to be the logical progression of a field in which members seek to satisfy the information needs of a community.
3. In an information management system, it makes sense to locate available information on a central searchable database, like a corporate intranet, to allow it to be easily categorized, classified, and consumed. How would one go about collecting the tacit information that the author states is the crux of a knowledge management system?