Precision in defining eg Knowledge Management could be unhelpful
A consultant pulls out their ‘model’, a blogger publishes a framework - and debate ensues. The model fails to …! I think X had it better!
The model and the framework have been successful.
They’re not supposed to be right. They’re supposed to provoke discussion.
Metaphors are neat boundary objects. Ambiguity is part of their job description. And models are metaphors. Arguing over their ‘correctness’ is beside the point. They are wrong by definition; they’re simplistic abstractions.
Creating a model (or a definition) may take longer than buying one off the shelf. And it might not be as catchy as one of the McKinsey Boston Deloitte etc ones. But it will serve the purpose better.
Compare with: informal learning vs formal learning, any other tetchy topic on Twitter
PS I can’t get the hang of snagging text in Amplify. I always seem to miss a letter or tw
If the definitions are mutually exclusive, that’s even better. Paradox and contradiction drive us think deeper, and ultimately reframe the problem or question, like Zen koans. (As such, I guess I subscribe to the Rinzai school of KM, wherein the answer transcends the question and once we finally solve the puzzle, the term itself will vanish.)
On the other hand, I’ve also come to believe that a good metaphor is worth a thousand definitions. Ambiguity and abstraction are among the most useful gadgets in the KM and organizational learning toolkits. You are forced to adapt and apply, rather than simply accept and adopt.
In fact, I agree with Tihamér von Ghyczy that a bad metaphor, like a bad definition, can sometimes be even more effective than a good one.
Explicit definitions are low-bandwidth and put people in a passive mode. Metaphors, because they “unpack” so much imagery, operate in a much higher bandwidth. Ambiguity can simulate or even demand an active mode of engagemenRead more at www.cognitive-edge.com
