Exploring the foundations of organizational knowledge.
Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of organizational knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 3: 1-39.
If knowledge management is to be more than an art, it needs to be based on a sound epistemology and understanding of... more
If knowledge management is to be more than an art, it needs to be based on a sound epistemology and understanding of organizations. We present a paradigm and an ontology of organizational knowledge based on Karl Popper’s 1972 and later works on evolutionary epistemology, Maturana and Varela’s concept of living things as self-producing complex systems ('autopoiesis'), and theories of hierarchically complex systems. This approach to ontology development leads us to conclude that organizations can become living systems and thus have emergent properties of a higher order than the sum of the parts. We develop this theoretical argument by providing examples of how several different types of knowledge created by people within organizations emerge and change through time. We suggest the social processes of creating these different types of knowledge gives rise to meta-levels of organization that act to maintain the existence and coherence of organizations. We think that our ontology improves the basis for understanding the nature of knowledge that is important for proper organizational functioning. We draw out recommendations about the management of transformations between personal and organizational knowledge. We propose this biological understanding of knowledge in organizations because as practitioners, we think it provides a way of interpreting the dynamics of what actually happens in the realm of managing organizational knowledge. Thus, we lay a foundation for better understanding the considerable challenges associated with developing a practical approach to organizational knowledge management as a result.
Keywords: knowledge management, evolutionary epistemology, knowledge ontology, organization theory, autopoiesis, OODA loop
40 views
Seen by: and 8 moreTextual representations and knowledge support-systems in research intensive networks.
2011: Vines, R., Hall, W.P., McCarthy, G. Textual representations and knowledge support-systems in research intensive networks. (in) Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Magee, L. (eds). Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research. Oxford: Chandos Press, pp. 145-195.
To support the increased efficacy and efficiency of research intensive networks and their impact in the world, we... more
To support the increased efficacy and efficiency of research intensive networks and their impact in the world, we claim there is a need to expand the context of knowledge systems associated with research intensive networks. This idea for us involves the development of a public knowledge imperative. We suggest that textual representations expressed as knowledge claims can no longer be hidden away from the eyes of public scrutiny when there are important matters of public interest either implicitly or explicitly at stake. The recent catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico provides an example of how particular types of knowledge, for example, procedures associated with offshore oil rigs, can rise up to become of the highest public priority almost overnight. To neglect the potency of such knowledge through a lack of public scrutiny can have devastating consequences, as the whole world has found out.
In this chapter we set out to provide a rationale as to why we think a public knowledge imperative is so important. To give expression to this imperative, we think there is a need for a new type of institutional and regulatory framework to protect and enhance the role of public knowledge. We call this framework a public knowledge space. It is public by virtue of the fact that it relies on semantic technologies and web publishing principles. But more importantly, in order to understand the multiple functions of a public knowledge space, we suggest it is first necessary to develop a detailed ontology of knowledge itself. Our ontology outlined in this chapter is broadly based because we emphasise the value of experience and lifeworlds as much as we do the importance of rigorous critiquing and transparent review. By extension, our views are slightly orthogonal to prevailing perspectives of the semantic web.

