“Data endowed with relevance and purpose” (Drucker, 2001);
“Interpreted data” (Probst et alii, 2002).
These definitions are similar to many others that point to the fact that information includes human participation in the purposeful organization of raw data.
Defining knowledge, however, is a much more complex task. One way to tackle this task is to go back to the roots of the Greek word episteme, which means absolute truth. That seems broad enough to include many subsequent definitions. What is absolute truth and how to reach it, however, have been questions plaguing many generations of philosophers since Aristotle and Plato. We will not discuss all the perspectives that many great thinkers have offered since then, but highlight that two main views have been put forth about how we learn and acquire knowledge: empiricism and rationalism (Gordon, 2002). The interplay between authors coming from these two camps offer us the current more accepted understanding about knowledge. Namely, knowledge can only reside in one’s mind and is the result of human experience and reflection based on a set of beliefs that are at the same time individual and collective.
The same complexity is highlighted by some of the leading authors in the emerging field of knowledge management. For instance, Davenport & Prusak (1998) define knowledge as a mix of fluid experiences, values, contextual information and intuition that provides a structure to evaluate and incorporate new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of individuals. This is similar to Nonaka & Takeuchi’s definition (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995): “Knowledge is true and justified belief”.
We could highlight many other definitions, but in our opinion, they would not add significantly to further clarifying the difference between information and knowledge. In general, all authors point to the complexity of knowledge compared to information. The key difference can be
summarized by the role played by human beings. In the case of knowledge, as simple as it may seem, individuals play a prominent role as creators, carriers, conveyors and users. In contrast, in the case of information, these same functions can happen “outside” humans and without their direct influence.
Key Differences Between Information and Knowledge Management
We will analyze the differences between IM and KM according to five different dimensions:
1. Interplay Between Information and Knowledge
2. IM and KM Projects: different scopes, approaches and measurement systems
3. Organizational Learning and KM
4. Broad Concepts of KM
5. Protecting Intellectual Capital: IM and KM Perspectives
Interplay Between Information and Knowledge
From a management perspective the key difference between information and knowledge is that information is much more easily identified, organized and distributed. Knowledge, on the other hand, cannot really be managed because it resides in one’s mind. Thus, KM is essentially limited to creating the right conditions for individuals to learn (using information and experiencing the world) and apply their knowledge to the benefit of the organization. The application of one’s knowledge can, hopefully, thereby be translated into relevant information that is shared and used, new products and actions that create value.
This understanding of knowledge and KM can leads one to think about the well-known “spiral of knowl
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。