Re: Measuring Knowledge LO2602

Tobin Quereau (quereau@austin.cc.tx.us)
Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:38:49 -0500 (CDT)

Replying to LO2592 --

On Sun, 27 Aug 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:

[snip...]
> If knowledge is a term distinguishing ability to act, then many of
> the confusions turn out to be conceptual and disappear into
> operational effectiveness. I offer the operational definition of
> knowledge, for purposes of organisational learning, as "the ability
> to respond with action to circumstances in ways appropriate to the
> intention of the actor." It is not, then, particularly relevant
> whether knowledge requires information or learning or any particular
> kind of these - such as implicit or explicit. It does become
> challenging how to measure this important phenomenon and focusses the
> measurement on performance.

Perhaps this may sound somewhat picky, but I like what you are saying if
(as I assume it does for you) your notion of "action" includes
"non-action" at times. Knowledge (or might I say "wisdom") may lead to the
decision _not_ to act in the conventional or expected ways as a means of
appropriately responding to a complex situation with many forces at play.

> What to measure, then might best be found in improvement in
> performance. The most important improvements in performance may not
> be of a specific and direct result for the customer but in the area
> of building capabilities to respond to different situations. The
> particular area of this might be building "platforms" for development
> and application of knowledge itself.
>
> How do you measure an increase in knowledge of a welder? Surely, by
> measuring the speed, quality or other characteristics of welds and
> the processes of producing them.

Here, for example, I can imagine that our focus on performance must also
include an awareness of when "welds" are not the best answer to a
situation. The "best" welder may be the one who knows when not to weld,
but to question a design or reduce the amount of welding necessary or
suggest other means of joining substances. As long as "performance"
includes such abilities to respond at this next higher level, (perhaps
this is what you mean by "responding to different situations") I can see
the value of such a perspective.

> How do you measure an increase in organisational knowledge of
> welding. Surely, by measuring the speed, quality or other
> characteristics of welds and the processes of producing them
> exhibited throughout the welding force.
>
> How do you measure the platforms that will improve future ability to
> weld? This is not so easy. But it becomes easier if we have
> different time scales and processes for testing processes which can
> be applied before specific results to a "final product" are known.
> This is mainly an adjustment to temporality.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you say more about the
"platforms" and "processes for testing processes" ideas?

And, while I'm thinking about it, I appreciated your post (LO 2591, I
believe) about the value of "noise" and the attitude we might employ
towards it. I, too, am concerned when we get too "effective-oriented" and
presume to make such designations early on. When I think of the process
which contributed to our being here and conversing on this list, I am
struck by the phenomenal amount of "noise" which has been necessary to our
evolution and involution. I'm sure that Barry Mallis can find a suitable
quatrain from Rumi to better communicate what I am stumbling over.

Perhaps something like-

I sweep the dust of the universe
and discover life.

(Or perhaps this is just more "noise"...)

--
Tobin Quereau
quereau@austin.cc.tx.us