TON'S INTERDEPENDENT THOUGHTS |
||
|
My current thoughts repository on the web
Interdependent Thoughts also available in Dutch and German
(Nederlands)
(Deutsch)
Links:
Knowledge Board Blogtalk Conference Ryze Blogalization Blogs I read:
(f) : met face to face
My microblogosphere:
Technorati Cosmos Blogstreet Neighbourhood Blogdex track Organica Daypop Blogtree GeoURL
Search my blogosphere:
Archives
March 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002
|
Defining the Knowledge WorkerMartin Roell in a recent post described his thoughts about a workeable definition of what a knowledge worker is. In the trackbacks Florian Heidecke, Geoffry Rockwell, and Jack Vinson add interesting thoughts and observations. What Martin describes resonates with my own perspective: I agree with Martin putting knowledge work more in the complex and knoweable realms of Dave Snowdens model, and less in the known. That in my opinion is why plumbers and carpenters are not knowledge workers, even though they are skilled specialists requiring specific knowledge at what they do. They apply an established body of knowledge to mainly well known problems. As to the routine work knowledge workers do, I think what we deem routine largely falls into the category of activities necessary to fit into an organizational environment. Attending meetings, writing reports, etc, it's all interfacing with the formal structures surrounding you. That is probably also why most knowledge workers find them boring. This as opposed to the other part of their routine activities, the ones you hear them complain much less about: collaborating with others. We all engage in finding and contacting others, then building relationships, rapport and context, enabling us to create artefacts (documents, stories, objects) and exchange knowledge (in the form of information, experiences, skills and attitudes), and ultimately to store/anchor knowledge in our personal routines, flows and tools. This cycle of collaboration as I call it, is reflected at the organization level by the general knowledge flow of importing/generating knowledge, diffusing and applying it, and in the end evaluating/unlearning it. ![]() The Knowledge Worker, bronze statue by Dieter Meding Now everybody in the world is caught up in these collaborative cycles of course, and that in itself does not make someone a knowledge worker. What does, I think, is the notion that while you can be great at the conveyor belt, or as an artisan, without being able to nurture your social network effectively, you cannot be a great knowledge worker without being great at the collaborative cycle. In knowledge work your social environment is the source of your creativity, the place where ideas come to fruition, and where you are rewarded with appreciation and increasingly income. This second part of routine tasks knowledge workers have, is in the vocabulary of the previous paragraph, interfacing with the informal structures around you. Whenever this clashes with interfacing with formal structures knowledge workers feel restricted, unappreciated, misunderstood etc. David Weinbergers definition of knowledge work, which he explained during the first BlogTalk conference in 2003, as having interesting conversations captures that exactly in my view. In the september issue of the Global Knowledge Review, a new magazine by David Gurteen, in his editorial David paints a similar picture of what a knowledge worker is to him:
All in all the above paragraphs are all just impressions and stories around the concept of a knowledge worker, and not yet a definition. To explore this further I have set up a group of wiki-pages (in the Personal Something Management Wiki) where I will work on this question from several different philosophical perspectives, in order to build a broader understanding, and a basis to arrive at a (consensus) based definition. Permalink | TrackBack | WaypathComments
sorry, Ton, it.s not possible to comment your comment on IT Frontal... so, here is what i think: Nope, So thats a practical way to see it, but before you try to define a _knowledge_ worker in an academic way you should start to define knowledge. good luck ;-) (fourth: if you.re able to understand german, why dont you write your comment in german ;-)? (as IT Frontal is a german blog [and i was not sure too if i should cite your blog in german or english...? ;-)]) Michael Domsalla Posted by: Michael at September 30, 2004 9:04 PMHi Ton, If we take a slightly more famous example, the XEROX photocopy engineers, on your definition, they are establishing a well known body of knowledge to problems, but, if I understand you, they are not knowledge workers because much of what they do is therefore rote. The issue I have is that it is these same process workers who contribute to that body of knowledge (how to solve things) - in the photocopy engineers example, half of what PARC did that was so interesting, i thought, was give these engineers the ability to contribute new solutions. Their contributions, I think, mean that actually they are knowledge workers, albeit not naturally bookish ones. And the same probably holds for carpenters and plumbers. I'd agree that knowledge work involves those Snowden sectors, but I think that workers, day-to-day, float between process and knowledge work. Some have more options open to them (knowledge sharing tools), and some may be more interested in "knowledge" in a slightly more cerebral, less-hands-on/process sense, but I'm not sure I think that means they are unique, or special. Knowledge work, I'm beginning to think, is something that everyone naturally does, some more than others, and some more easily than others. The lesson I took from the Social life of Information was that, even if those round the water cooler were computer illiterate, they sometimes shared solutions and contributed to a body of knowledge in some way. That part of their jobs was knowledge work, and KM/PKM is presumably about helping workers (any) when they need to do that part of their job that isn't process. Posted by: Piers Young at October 26, 2004 4:21 PMPost a comment
|
Powered by
|