There have been a few threads on LinkedIn KM groups on the topic of “knowledge assets” recently.
It’s one of those words which gets thrown around by KM people without any agreed definition. For many people, they are interchangeable with the term “information assets”, but sound sexier. (Much like databases became “knowledgebases” a few years ago.)
Now I’m not going to assert definitions here – rather to give my view on the different perspectives, and share the way I distinguish between knowledge assets and information assets, building on the descriptions that Geoff and I wrote in “Learning to Fly”.
Speaking of flight, there’s something about butterfly collections which always leaves me feeling slightly saddened. The colours and fragility are still there, but of course the life has gone.
I think we do well to remind ourselves that when we capture knowledge and write it down as information, we kill it.
That’s not to say that the information is not immensely valuable, and may even have a long shelf life.
But it is dead.
Knowledge is information with the life still in it!
For me, the role of a knowledge asset is to consolidate the learning from a number of activities, and produce a distilled set of guidelines or recommendations, with (importantly) a clear and well-linked signpost to contact the source, to drill down into more detail and examples, and to contribute further stories to build the asset further. Oh, and there’s some kind of mechanism for validating the input – ideally via a community of practice. They keep it alive.
I’ve seen a lot of examples which start out as “knowledge assets”, but quickly become “knowledge graveyards” because there is no community to own and refresh the content, and the links between the information and the authors/sources are not clear or maintained. Once you lose the connection between knowledge and the person who provided it, it’s a bit like switching off its life support machine…
- There is an “extractionist” school of thought out there which focuses on separating knowledge from an individual, then combining, distilling and packaging in into a convenient and accessible products.
- And there’s a “connectivist” school of thought which seeks to turn information into an advertisement for a conversation with the source.
I think the best knowledge assets combine these perspectives. Too much extractionism (is that a real word?), and you can end up a logical but inflexible, self-reinforcing summary of the views of the editor-in-chief. Too much connectivism, and you can get endless repeating, diverging threads and snippets which can be frustrating to draw insight from, and require too many phone calls to answer the all questions they elicit.
There are some topics which lend themselves to something approaching a “single version of the truth” (we call that known area “best practice” don’t we?), and for them, the logic of an extractionist-oriented knowledge asset will work.
Then there are topics which are more complicated, and benefit from the constant iteration and interaction of a connection-rich asset. (That’s knowable “good practice” in the Cynefin framework).
I suspect it’s in these two quadrants where knowledge assets add value. Shifting further to the left takes us on a journey into emergence and chaos where pre-packaged knowledge is unlikely to fit the bill, although the fragments and stories they contain may well be informative.
One of the LinkedIn discussions asked: “Is a cookbook was an example of a knowledge asset?”
My answer was:
… a cookbook isn’t really a very good example of a knowledge asset because it represents a snapshot in time of a particular recipe, and doesn’t usually provide me with an easy way to ask questions of the chef, or other cooks who are learning/experimenting/adapting… I would say it’s really an Information Asset. That’s not a bad thing – I have a kitchen full of them!
However, a recipe *blog*, which has all the benefit of the book, but which is socially constructed, grows and develops, commented-on added to by other cooks and enthusiasts who ask and answer questions… Now that feels more like a *knowledge* asset to me.
February 1, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Spot on!
February 2, 2012 at 8:27 am
Well said! And could not be said other way. Thank you!
February 2, 2012 at 10:43 am
Fascinating post, Chris. I would be interested in your take on those involved in online curation (e.g. Brain Pickings, Curiosity Counts, Open Culture, etc). It seems that where they do this well, there is an element of both ‘extraction’ and ‘connection’. And where knowledge/information has been separated from an individual or its original context – possibly through the death of an individual, for example – these curators are seeking to inject new life by prompting ongoing discussion. Or am I way off track on that?
February 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Hi Richard,
Thanks!
I confess I had to look ‘online curation’ up! (How did that pass me by?)
if it’s this kind of thing:
http://www.business2community.com/content-marketing/content-curation-best-practices-054269
…then I agree with you – it’s all very closely related.
I guess the areas where knowledge assets might be different is that they are usually restricted to areas which have some longevity (i.e. several years?) because they strategic topics to a company, and tend to be built upon over long period. The other difference is that perhaps knowledge assets place a greater emphasis on including and promoting links to the people behind the content. But overall, yes, sounds like a very similar practice. Thanks for teaching me something new!
Cheers,
Chris
February 2, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Thanks Chris.
There is also a good post on content curation by Beth Kanter: http://www.bethkanter.org/content-curation-101/. This is also an area that Brian Solis has written about on his blog (e.g. http://www.briansolis.com/2011/04/the-curation-economy-and-the-three-3c’s-of-information-commerce/) and in his recent book.
February 3, 2012 at 11:44 am
Nice post Chris on what fits what context…you may be interested in my post from not long ago
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2011/12/08/oh-is-that-km-is-it/
hahaha…I just noticed I mentioned you at the end of the post…
I suggest that you can’t do KM, unless you have flow…otherwise what is there to manage
I also differentiate know-what from know-how
…even tips and tricks based on experience which are very valuable in how things are done around here are still “information” (or more precise “informal information”…but I’m happy to call it explicit knowledge…because for me knowledge is personal, it’s the fundamental skills you have to deal with a situation you perhaps have never dealt with before…this becomes obvious in the difference between a chef and someone who follows a recipe, where they may become stuck if something is missing or something changes where they don’t know how to adapt…this (know-how) you can’t extract (more for observation and apprenticeship)…but the connectivist you talk about is the next best thing to have dialogue and re-frame to your context, so you can then action it where it becomes personal knowledge. Therefore knowledge flow (connection) is key to problem solving in life.
Your post is good timing with the KM Aus 2012 debate on whether tacit knowledge can and should be captured using social technologies (which is no different to f2f like anecdote circles…it’s all dialogue in the end)
I’d probably say “no”, because if so, then I would be a millionaire reading self help books on making money, or be a chef just by reading a book on how to be a chef…even if these books have the most awesome little nuance tips and tricks, with a million examples…the fact is we learn by doing, and from this we gain personal (tacit) knowledge..and the moment we share it, it becomes information for someone else
…so the best we can ever do is create conditions for dialogue, which documentation doesn’t have, and from this we can act.
Whoa, sorry about the long comment…
Here’s an excerpt from my post:
“KM is emergent. You can’t do knowledge management without knowledge flow
We achieve this by allowing people to connect; knowledge flow.
Once we have this then we can do knowledge management. By that I mean we can do the “manage” part by gardening, curating. ie. using links in documentation (processes, procedures, guides, etc.) that point to the threads from the knowledge flow. Our documentation is perpetually evolving; which is what KM is.
Knowledge Management needs stuff to manage, as you can’t manage what’s in people’s heads. Instead if we first facilitate knowledge flow, a lot of what people know (ie. stuff) naturally spills out in conversation (mostly based in the context of need, or even proactively via totally engaged people who narrate their work)…and if this is done online, well then we have stuff to manage.”
February 3, 2012 at 3:41 pm
[…] a new post from Chris Collison – a blogger with a similar background to mine – again tweeted by […]
February 10, 2012 at 12:34 pm
[…] נכתב על ההבדל בין מידע לידע ועל דרכים להבחין ביניהם. Chris Collison מציע דרך […]
March 8, 2012 at 11:33 pm
I think you and I read the same papers 🙂 Love the butterly analogy..
March 8, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Thanks Paul,
You’re right. Liked your presentation.
Cheers…
December 3, 2012 at 11:11 am
[…] Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not decrying any kind of activity to capture lessons learned. Sometimes the learning is such that there is no obvious process or standard which can be changed, and there is no immediate customer for the knowledge. In those cases we need to preserve it in such a way that our learning is expressed as a recommendation for the next team, and is supported with the reason, the narrative, any relevant artifacts and the contact details of the person behind the recommendation. These things all add context to what would otherwise be a recommendation in isolation. The next team then have more background to assess whether this particular recommendation is relevant in their world. I wrote about this on my February posting on dead butterfly collections. […]
December 16, 2013 at 7:53 am
[…] Twelve knowledge assets […]
February 5, 2015 at 2:24 pm
[…] we planting vast fields of information assets? Or are we harvesting fruitful knowledge assets? The latter is designed to provide just enough – and also to enable digging on the […]