META-ENGINEERING COLLOQUIUM Theory of Organizational Knowledge William P. Hall (PhD) Australian Centre for Science,

META-ENGINEERING COLLOQUIUM

Theory of Organizational

Knowledge

William P. Hall (PhD)http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net

Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Societyand Engineering Learning Unit, Melbourne School of Engineering, Melbourne University

Email: [email protected]

5 October 2009

Peop

le

Pro

cess

Infra

stru

ctu

re

Organizational knowledge

Leave one of the legs off, and the stool will

fall over

http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net

My Background

Majored in physics for 3 years but dyslexic with numbers

Hands on with all generations of computersPhD 1973 Harvard Univ. in evolutionary biologyUniv. Melbourne Research Fellow genetics 1977-1979Migrated to Australia in 1980, & bought a PC prototypeTurned to computer literacy teaching and tech writingSoftware development & banking through 1989 Joined Tenix ‘90 for $7 bn ANZAC Ship ProjectThrough July 2007 commercial and engineering

content and knowledge management systems analysis and design roles through entire ANZAC project cycle

Since 2000 combining practice, fundamental & development research in engineering KM


Why do engineers need to manage knowledge?

Engineering processes and products are knowledge intensive and fallible!– Design, Manufacturing, Operation– Management is knowledge intensive

The “post-human” organization– Organizations are complex dynamic systems

• Difference between complex and complicated– Organizations have minds of their own (my research area)– Cannot be predicted, can only be constrained

• Involve much more than people– Depend on "system of systems" to manage knowledge– System of systems components include

• Infrastructure (e.g., physical premises, ICT, software)• Processes• People! (most difficult area for engineers)

Concern to build a scientifically grounded understanding of this system of systems


Gap: foundation questions about knowledge

What is knowledge?– Deep and difficult philosophical question for anyone

• Metaphysics vs reality• Theory laden terminology can lead to raging debate

– How to start a flame war• Ask a knowledge manager to define what it is they are

supposed to manage• Poor concepts can cause major blind spots in KM programs

What is an organization?– More than just a group of people– Natural history vs science– Multitude of ad hoc “theories” vs a generic foundation

Inescapable relationship: knowledge | organizationHistorical steps towards answering the questions


History: DIKIW / “WIKID Power”

Ackoff (1988), Coombe (1996) Army Info Management

Cognitive processing transforms content and adds value– Data = differences– Contextualized data →

information (differences that make a difference - Bateson)

– Semantically linked information → knowledge (tentative solutions to problems)

– Knowledge + assesment → intelligence (intelligence, with uncertainty, is deduced after several pieces of knowledge are assessed together)

– Intelligence tested through application in the world to reduce uncertainty → wisdom

– Wisdom leads to strategic power

Unstructured Data/text(not integrated)

Unstructured Data/text(not integrated)CONTEXT

AWARENESS

INFORMATION

INTELLIGENCE

INFLUENCE WISDOM

POWER

CONTROL

DECISION/ACTION

from INTELLIGENCE

SYNTAX

KNOWLEDGE

SEMANTICS


Tacit, Implicit and Explicit

Vines & Hall in prep after Polanyi, Nichols

Perceptionsof context

Relationship to context

Pre- dispositionalknowledge

arising fromexperience

SITUATIONALKNOWLEDGE

Can the knowledge bearticulated?

Has the knowledge beenarticulated?

No Yes Yes

Tacitknowledge

I mplicitknowledge

Explicitknowledge

Proceduralknowledge

Declarativeknowledge

Knowledgecreated by

doing

Knowledgecreated bydescribing

Semantics


Keys to answering “what is organizational knowledge”

Evolutionary epistemology (Karl Popper)– “Three worlds” ontology: (1) reality / (2) cybernetics / (3) code– Living knowledge built via evolutionary processes– Knowledge is “solutions to problems”– Solutions embodied as “control information” in feedback loops

EnergyThermodynamics

PhysicsChemistry

Biochemistry

Cyberneticself- regulation

CognitionConsciousness

HeredityRecorded thought

Expressed languageComputer memoryLogical artifacts

Reproduction/Production

Development/Recall

Drive/Enable

Regulate/Control I nfe

rred

logic

Desc

ribe/

Pred

ict

TestObserve

WORLD 1

WORLD 2 WORLD 3

TS1TS2•••••TSm

Pn Pn+1EE


Pn Pn+1EE


Pn Pn+1EE


Pn Pn+1EE


Pn Pn+1EE


Pn Pn+1EE


Pn Pn+1EE

Popper’s “General Theory of Evollution”


Generic learning cycle

OODA – John Boyd– Jet fighter ace in Korean War– Strategic thinker

A(W2)

O(W2)

OBSERVE

(Results of Test)I MPLICIT GUI DANCE AND CONTROL

EXTERNAL I NFORMATI ON

CHANGI NG CIRCUMSTANCES

UNFOLDI NG ENVIRONMENTAL

RESULTS OF ACTIONS

ORIENT

D(W2)

DECIDE

(Hypothesis)

O

CULTURE PARADIGMS PROCESSES

(W2)

DNA GENETIC

HERITAGE(W3)

MEMORY OF HISTORY(W2 / W3)

I NPUT(W2)

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

(W2)

ACT

(Test)

I MPLICIT GUI DANCE AND CONTROL

UNFOLDI NG I NTERACTION WI TH EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

(W1)

(W1)

A(W2)

O(W2)

OBSERVE

(Results of Test)I MPLICIT GUI DANCE AND CONTROL

EXTERNAL I NFORMATI ON

CHANGI NG CIRCUMSTANCES

UNFOLDI NG ENVIRONMENTAL

RESULTS OF ACTIONS

ORIENT

D(W2)

DECIDE

(Hypothesis)

O

CULTURE PARADIGMS PROCESSES

(W2)

DNA GENETIC

HERITAGE(W3)

MEMORY OF HISTORY(W2 / W3)

I NPUT(W2)

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

(W2)

ACT

(Test)

I MPLICIT GUI DANCE AND CONTROL

UNFOLDI NG I NTERACTION WI TH EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

(W1)

(W1)


A major key

Autopoiesis (H Maturana, F Varela -“self” + “production”)– When can a complex system be considered to be living?

• Self-identifiably bounded• Complex• Mechanistic, self-regulating• System boundaries internally determined (self referential)• System intrinsically produces its own components• Self-produced components are necessary and sufficient to

produce the system (autonomy).– Autopoietic systems recursively produce and maintain

themselves– Governed by laws of physical thermodynamics

Many organizations are autopoietic


Another major key

HIGHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT

SYSTEM"HOLON" SYSTEM

SUBSYSTEMS

boundaryconditions,

constraints,

regulations,

actualities

FOCAL LEVEL

Possibilities

initiatingconditions

universallaws

"material -causes"

Theory of hierarchically complex systems (H. Simon, H. Pattee, J. Hoffmeyer, S. Salthe)


More concepts

Information theory - C. Shannon, W. Weaver– Physical basis for information (but not meaning)

Biosemiotics (biological communication theory) – C.S. Pierce, H. Pattee, J. Hoffmeyer, C. Emmeche, M. Barbieri– Communication (information)– Signification (meaning)– Habit formation (learning) of living processes

Causality (upward and downward causation) – Aristotle, S. Salthe– Applicability to hierarchically complex systems

Epistemic cuts – H. Pattee, J. Hoffmeyer, H. Atmanspacher– The world vs knowledge of the world; a control vs control

information– Physical basis of Popper’s three worlds

Code duality – J. Hoffmeyer, C. Emeche– Embodied or “structural” knowledge vs codified knowledge– Biological basis for Popper’s three worlds

Bounded rationality – H. Simon


Organizational autopoiesis

Many organizations meet all the requirements to be considered to be autopoietic– Self-identifiably bounded

• Employee registers, ID badges, uniforms, walls, guards, fences, etc.

– Complex• People, machines, premises

– Mechanistic, self-regulating• Governance and accounting systems, processes

– System boundaries internally determined (self referential)• HR systems, planning departments, property deeds

– System intrinsically produces its own components• Induction, training, apprenticeship

– Self-produced components are necessary and sufficient to produce the system (autonomy)

Organizational knowledge (Nelson & Winter 1982)– Structural knowledge – “tacit routines” – Popper’s world 2– Codified knowledge – documents & formal processes


Implementing OODA system of systems in the organization

PROCESS

PEOPLE

CULTURE & PARADIGMS

INFRASTRUCTURE

“CORPORATE MEMORY”

INPUT

ANALYSI S SYNTHESI S

PEOPLEPEOPLE

GENETIC HERI TAGE

DATA CONTENTLINKS

RELATIONSANNOTA-

TI ONS

OBSERVE DECIDE, ACT

DOCS RECORDS


Knowledge and individuals

Individuals in an organizational environment (Vines & Hall in prep)– Personal knowledge (person’s own life management)– Person’s knowledge relating to organizational roles

• what knowledge is needed• who may know the answer• where the explicit knowledge may be found• why the knowledge is important or why it was created• when the knowledge was last needed or may be needed in the future• how to apply the knowledge

Synthesizingknowledge

Capturingsense data

CODIFYINGand structuring data,

information and knowledge

PRESENTINGdata, informationand knowledge

Ob

serv

ing

and

sen

se m

akin

g

Spe

cial

ized

soc

ial l

angu

ages

and

nar

rativ

e th

read

s ru

nni

ngth

roug

h ca

reer

and

wo

rk n

etw

orks

Kno

wle

dge

obje

cts

such

as

book

s,d

atab

ase

s, d

ocu

men

ts, e

tc.

WORLD 2Personal

knowledge

WORLD 3Explicit

knowledge

Contextualizinginformation



Ob

serv

ing

and

sen

se m

akin

g

Spe

cial

ized

soc

ial l

angu

ages

and

nar

rativ

e th

read

s ru

nni

ngth

roug

h ca

reer

and

wo

rk n

etw

orks

WORLD 2Personal

knowledge

Synthesizingknowledge

Capturingsense dataCapturingsense data



PRESENTINGdata, informationand knowledge

Ob

serv

ing

and

sen

se m

akin

g

Spe

cial

ized

soc

ial l

angu

ages

and

nar

rativ

e th

read

s ru

nni

ngth

roug

h ca

reer

and

wo

rk n

etw

orks

Kno

wle

dge

obje

cts

such

as

book

s,d

atab

ase

s, d

ocu

men

ts, e

tc.

WORLD 2Personal

knowledge

WORLD 3Explicit

knowledge





Ob

serv

ing

and

sen

se m

akin

g

Spe

cial

ized

soc

ial l

angu

ages

and

nar

rativ

e th

read

s ru

nni

ngth

roug

h ca

reer

and

wo

rk n

etw

orks

WORLD 2Personal

knowledge


The autopoietic organization

Vines and Hall in prep

IFK(W2)

FK

CK

EK}Semantics of explicit

knowledge are only available via World 2 processes

Code:

EK – Explicit KnowledgeCK – Common KnowledgeFK – Formal KnowledgeIFK – Integrated Formal

KnowledgeFor the purposes of this diagramCK and FK are expressionsof explicit knowledge (EK)

WORLD 1

WORLD 2PERSONAL

KNOWLEDGE

WORLD 3

KNOWLEDGE BUILDING

PROCESSES

KNOWINGORGANIZATION

(including organizational tacit knowledge)ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTEXTS

SEMIPERMEABLEBOUNDARY●

●DRIVE & ENABLE

ANTICIPATE & INFLUENCE

OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE

KNOWLEDGE FLOW

S

& EXCHANGESIFK(W2)

FK

CK

EK}Semantics of explicit

knowledge are only available via World 2 processes

Code:

EK – Explicit KnowledgeCK – Common KnowledgeFK – Formal KnowledgeIFK – Integrated Formal

KnowledgeFor the purposes of this diagramCK and FK are expressionsof explicit knowledge (EK)

WORLD 1

WORLD 2PERSONAL

KNOWLEDGE

WORLD 3

KNOWLEDGE BUILDING

PROCESSES

KNOWINGORGANIZATION

(including organizational tacit knowledge)ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTEXTS

SEMIPERMEABLEBOUNDARY●

●DRIVE & ENABLE

ANTICIPATE & INFLUENCE

OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE

KNOWLEDGE FLOW

S

& EXCHANGES


Applying OODA to formal knowledge in the organization

Vines & Hall in prep

Error reduction in new knowledge claims

Kno

wle

dge

qual

ity a

ssur

ance

thro

ugh

criti

cism

and

rea

lity

test

ing

WORLD 3Formal

knowledge

WORLD 3Explicit

knowledge

WORLD 3Common

knowledge

Kno

wle

dge

exch

ange

Reviewprocessing

Error reduction in new knowledge claims

Kno

wle

dge

qual

ity a

ssur

ance

thro

ugh

criti

cism

and

rea

lity

test

ing

WORLD 3Formal

knowledge

WORLD 3Explicit

knowledge

WORLD 3Common

knowledge

Kno

wle

dge

exch

ange

Reviewprocessing

Documents

META-ENGINEERING COLLOQUIUM Theory of Organizational Knowledge William P. Hall (PhD) Australian Centre for Science,