Talk:Knowledge ecosystem/Archive 1

Would someone please explain why this justifies an article rather than a modification of addition to the Knowledge management page? --Snowded 07:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snowdred - just my opinion, but you seem to want to lump a lot of items into the Knowledge management page, whereas (1) in the KM talk page even you cite that the 3rd generation and beyond of KM talks about the need for more of an ecosystem approach, and (2) a W3C working group explicitly exists called "Knowledge Ecosystem Task Force Proposal" not Knowledge Management, so how do you justify lumping in your direction vs. the other way around, finally (3) several academic articles, see SSRN and Google Scholar, explicitly use the KEYWORD knowledge ecosystem. Hence, if "lumping" articles is your objective, then why not also lump "KM Concepts" into the Knowledge Management article as well. 68.219.74.75 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked a simple question and I await an answer. The existence of the Knowledge Management article has not been questoned as it is an established discipline. Its not an article I created but it is there and has active participation from many editors. Several spin off articles have been created, the majority of which were adverts for a particular stance and I (as have others) have tidied those up by proposing them for deletion. It is worthy of note that many of the "adverts" have being by people using an IP address, not a name. Interestingly as a test no one defended any of those. When this article appeared I was not clear what category it fell into. A usful addition, or yet another advert. The current text contains nothing of particular note. I was hoping (and hope) that whoever decided to create this article would explain why it is different, and what the plans are to extend it so that it is meaningful in some way. I suggest you don't over react, use a real user name and bother to answer the question (using colons would also help people track this thread) --Snowded 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be argued (as Snowdred) suggests that knowledge ecosystems represent an adverts for a particular stance, unless we're going to accuse Canada and the W3C of attempting to engage advertisements through their use of terminology. Also, I don't think the first poster was saying you "created" the knowledge management article... you'd have to be Peter Drucker, and he unfortunately passed away some years ago. Lastly, not sure about the IP address vs. real user name, as people can (though they shouldn't, by Wikipedia standards) have different user names. Some folks my just opt not to have their history tracked. I do think not all articles have to be lumped together. 170.140.134.82 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I made no such argument so please don't misrepresent me, I asked a simple question and would like people to answer it. There is a practice of creating advertising articles, where this is clearly the case they are proposed for deletion by myself and others. Two new ones were referenced to the KM article at the same time, this and Knowledge Mapping, in both cases I ashed the question. Wiki4fun appears to have attempted to answer the question, at least to get to first base on the article justifying its potential. As to the IP address issue, yes it is allowed in Wikipedia, but speaking for myself I think a lot less of people who hide behind it. --Snowded 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but color me confused. Haven't we established that organizatons who would have no vested interest in trying to use Wikipedia to "advertise" as you claim are using the term, thus this is not some sole-author-jargon or original research that has yet to be put into human practice? Perhaps you can tell me what I've missed in reading all this? User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the sequence, when Wiki4fun provided the references to "non-advertising" groups I was happy. I just asked the question. The subject is of interest to me (and that some of my material (on complexity) was already referenced in the site). If it is a serious site then I am happy to see it develop. --Snowded 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wiki4fun - For me, regarding either consolidation or disambiguation of Wikipedia articles, I apply the Google search method to see if a specific phrase shows up in common and/or academic use. Hence, searching Google with the exact phrase +"knowledge ecosystem" reveals over 10,300+ hits. If we're getting that large a hits for the exact phrase, I'd suggest that merits existence. I also usually search for the contrasting phrase (in this case "knowledge management" within the exact phrase). So on the 1st page of the Google search, the only two hits that include the phrase "knowledge management" within their 3-line Google description are this Wikipedia article, and a paid advertisement at the top. Curiously, these hits:

Towards an Integrated Knowledge Ecosystem: A Canadian Research ... The W3C Ontology Working Group ... What Is a Knowledge Ecosystem: through a "Bi-focal" Lens ... Knowledge Ecology: Knowledge Ecosystems for Business Education and ...

And several others do not include "knowledge management" within their 3-line Google description. So it seems, to me, that "knowledge ecosystems" are sufficiently distinct from knowledge management to merit their own article in Wikipedia. Wiki4fun 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding 68.219.74.75's point, I concur. The W3C link here (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/task_forces/Knowledge_Ecosystem.html) doesn't even cite "knowledge management" within the entire article.

Wiki4fun - I think your reasoning is sound, but wanted to also add an academic perspective. Knowledge ecosystems are distinct from knowledge management in that they imply a potential (or actual) indeterminism or uncertainty to the changing environment, ergo the impossibility of management. That gets at the heart of answer Snowdred. You shouldn't lump this under knowledge management because "management" denotes some semblence of control or direct influence, where as the complex adaptive systems literature and knowledge ecosystems espouse emergent outcomes where you may or may not have any control at all, and if you do it's indirect at best.

the above comment is unsigned. I have no desire to lump this under knowledge management if it is distinct. However the current text is not. I assume those who created it have some plans to expand the material --Snowded 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, you might want to check out your use of the word "manage", its origins are in french/italian and relate to the ability to ride a horse. It is mistake to equate management with command and control. In a CAS it is possible to influence aspects of emergence, and more specifically once an attractor mechanism is identified to make some predictions, at least around what can not longer happen. --Snowded 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider to the whole dialogue going on here, I might be missing the point, but do most people ride a horse without intentionally directing its movement via stirrups, blinders, and verbal commands? I don't think people allow the destination a horse reaches to be an "emergent" property, do they? 68.211.151.138 01:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The relationshop necessary for dressage is a co-evolutionary one not a command and control relationship. --Snowded 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great that the origins of management are different, however checking a Modern Dictionary (and I believe we're talking about modern use here, as KM itself as a word only arose about 15-20 years ago), User68 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Merriam-Webster says management is:

1 - the act or art of managing, the conducting or supervising of something (as a business)

2 - judicious use of means to accomplish an end

3 - the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise

Source, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/management User68 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to collapse articles past on past origins of word forms, then should we also lump laser printer with printing press on Wikipedia? User68 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest collapsing articles on the basis of past word forms? The question was simply if this article was going to be distinct. Try not to be paranoid :-) Incidentally I still like the origina of manage, and accepting Merriam-Webster defintions would destroy philosophy as a subject. If you want the full reference to the origins you can find it in an article on narratives and networks which relates to the subject matter.

http://www.cognitive-edge.com/articledetails.php?articleid=52 --Snowded 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snowded - hmm... but I don't know if we have the option of *not* accepting Merriam-Webster definitions in contrast to what you'd prefer to keep. That said, I think we both can agree that Wikipedia needs to be fair and balanced, so while you can add to this (or KM) the origina of manage, I think it's also fair/balanced to talk about how it's currently used -- as defined by a definitive source, yes? Also, I looked at the http://www.cognitive-edge.com/articledetails.php?articleid=52 link, but it doesn't mention knowledge within the details (and that's a *.com address, could also be an advert). User68 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is irelevant, my point (if you read it) is that more or less every article on Philosophy in the Wikipedia would loose its value if we simply accepted a dictionary defintion. Just check out the dictionary defintion of "knowledge" and the article of the same name. There are as many defintions of knowledge as there are schools of epistemology. Similarily management has multiple means in the professional literature and cannot be confined to a dictionary. --Snowded 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence indirectly. I think the distinction here is direct vs. indirect, and management as its most recent connections to Taylorism, which is very much about direct. I'm also familar with Clippinger's writings, there's a chapter by Philip Anderson (an academic, who would disagree with your assessment as well Snowdred; see his article in Organization Science on Complexity Theory). Title: Seven Levers for Guiding the Evolving Enterprise, By: Philip Anderson, my comments all follow below: User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Anderson and myself (Snowden in reality) are quoted in several articles as being on the same side. http://www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/04107

As one of the people who introduced complexity science to knowledge management, and was the first to argue for bottom up informal networks over communities of practice I could get irritated with this. --Snowded 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

An effective organization is evolved, not designed. “Recipes for assembling interlocked behaviors” (p. 120). Guiding the evolution of behaviors that emerge from the interaction of independent agents instead of specifying in advance what effective behavior is. User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For CASs, viewing them as a network of connected agents is particularly useful (this is how he views businesses, government, society, any human-tech amalgamated “organism”). Other good points: User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Evolution proceeds more rapidly when networks are partitioned

2. Chose may signal that a network is too richly interconnected

3. A slow rate of evolutionary improvement may reflect too much interdependence

4. It is more important to identify the worst-performance element in a network than the best-performing on (weakest link in the chain?)

So it makes sense to *link* to knowledge management, as there is history, but there are different discussions, one presupposing more influence or control than the other (or perhaps knowledge ecosystems a reaction against potential hubris of knowledge management). Therein, if I may suggest, the beauty of Wikipedia and perhaps what most of us are talking about here, you can actually have hyperlinks and short articles that link to larger articles over the web... in a way, that's a good knowledge ecosystem (or management, if you so believe). For references on the distinction between knowledge ecosystems/indeterminancy and knowledge managmement, see John Clippinger's "The Biology of Business" as a great text. If you're looking for more academic references, I concur that the citations here for Jim March, particularly on organizational learning and decision making, are appropriate.

unsigned comment --Snowded 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was 170.140.x.x, if you check the history. That, however, does not remove the value of his argument Snowded. As mentioned, I'm also familar with Clippinger's writings on the subject, so I'll include some relevant quotes here: User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

“the third generation needs to consider “techniques for fostering learning and exchange through more social approaches, such as expert networks, team-based organizational design…” (p. 91) Thus the distinction with knowledge ecosystems. User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

“the suitability of the match between its knowledge and the problems in the environment in which it operates thus defines its degree of ‘fitness’” (p. 99) – this is akin to what March (1991) argues. Knowledge is an emergent property of groupings within the enterprise. “The emergent outcomes of their efforts represent a portfolio of potential adaptations, some of which survive and some of which do not” == innovations are included in those ideas that survive. User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

“small incremental changes can provoke sudden, unexpected ‘threshold changes’” (p. 99) At its best a “’complex adaptive’ consulting enterprise fosters random, even explosive, innovation but is also able to sense any sudden lack of adaptation in an unpredictable environment” User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

“Since outcomes of knowledge creation are nonlinear, predicting success is difficult” … exactly! (p. 103) Further “CAS strategy is much more about facilitating self-organization” User68 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)