METAENGINEERING COLLOQUIUM Theory of Organizational Knowledge Organizational knowledge

META-ENGINEERING COLLOQUIUM Theory of Organizational Knowledge Organizational knowledge cture Infrastru Process People Leave one of the legs off, and the stool will fall over William P. Hall (Ph. D) http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society and Engineering Learning Unit, Melbourne School of Engineering, Melbourne University Email: whall@unimelb. edu. au 5 October 2009

My Background Majored in physics for 3 years but dyslexic with numbers Hands on with all generations of computers Ph. D 1973 Harvard Univ. in evolutionary biology Univ. Melbourne Research Fellow genetics 1977 -1979 Migrated to Australia in 1980, & bought a PC prototype Turned to computer literacy teaching and tech writing Software development & banking through 1989 Joined Tenix ‘ 90 for $7 bn ANZAC Ship Project Through 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 http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

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

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 | organization Historical steps towards answering the questions http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

History: DIKIW / “WIKID Power” Ackoff (1988), Coombe (1996) Army Info Management Cognitive processing transforms content and adds value CS ANTI SEM http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net – 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

Tacit, Implicit and Explicit Vines & Hall in prep after Polanyi, Nichols Semantics http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

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 Popper’s “General Theory of Evollution” http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

Generic learning cycle OODA – John Boyd – Jet fighter ace in Korean War – Strategic thinker http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

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

Another major key Theory of hierarchically complex systems (H. Simon, H. Pattee, J. Hoffmeyer, S. Salthe) HIGHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT boundary conditions, constraints, regulations, actualities "HOLON" SYSTEM FOCAL LEVEL Possibilities SUBSYSTEMS http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net initiating conditions universal laws "material causes"

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

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

Implementing OODA system of systems in the organization http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

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

The autopoietic organization Vines and Hall in prep http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net

Applying OODA to formal knowledge in the organization Vines & Hall in prep http: //www. orgs-evolution-knowledge. net