Neil Olonoff Dissertation Summary Taos-Tilburg Doctoral Program
<ul><li>1990s - knowledge management (Km), began to coalesce </li></ul><ul><li>Km derives from diverse sources including <...
<ul><li>In the 1990s Km  weathered a stormy infancy .  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational change and development methods...
<ul><li>Some see  two grand discourses  in Km:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information Technology, and  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
<ul><li>Early knowledge management efforts were exercises in “ collection ” of knowledge, viewed as an object.  </li></ul>...
<ul><li>The knowledge as connection idea  confronts us with a paradox at the heart of modern organizations :  </li></ul><u...
<ul><li>This paradox generates an opportunity to explore the following questions:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Since organiza...
<ul><li>More questions … </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How will this conception of intentional and personal collaboration for know...
<ul><li>At the present moment we cannot avoid the darkening shadow of economic and social events.  </li></ul><ul><li>The p...
For more information, contact  Neil Olonoff [email_address]
Neil Olonoff [email_address]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Knowledge Management: The Relational Dimension

388 views
339 views

Published on

Summary of Neil Olonoff's Dissertation for the Taos-Tilburg Doctoral Program

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
388
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
22
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Knowledge Management: The Relational Dimension

    1. 1. Neil Olonoff Dissertation Summary Taos-Tilburg Doctoral Program
    2. 2. <ul><li>1990s - knowledge management (Km), began to coalesce </li></ul><ul><li>Km derives from diverse sources including </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Philosophy, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social sciences, economics, organizational development, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business theory, rationalization of work (Taylorism), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Psychology, cognitive sciences etc., etc. </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>In the 1990s Km weathered a stormy infancy . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational change and development methods PLUS attempts to “manage” knowledge seemed to equal CONTROVERSY </li></ul></ul><ul><li>KM has survived many challenges: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Should Km exist at all? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efforts by self-interested agents (VENDORS) to influence its movement in directions they favored. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>KM now thrives as a turbulent storm of colliding discourses. </li></ul><ul><li>These collisions illustrate paradoxes at the core of organizational life . </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>Some see two grand discourses in Km: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information Technology, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational Learning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>I see diverse discourses , among them </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the nature of organizational knowledge, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ways of organizing around knowledge, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>individual relationships within and to the organization. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>My dissertation is focused on the third discourse, concerning persons and relationships in organizations. </li></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>Early knowledge management efforts were exercises in “ collection ” of knowledge, viewed as an object. </li></ul><ul><li>Km moved on to collaboration, and an “activity centric” model of knowledge use. </li></ul><ul><li>I will profile a third phase, knowledge as “connection.” </li></ul><ul><li>This vision draws on the relational, constructionist view of knowledge. </li></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>The knowledge as connection idea confronts us with a paradox at the heart of modern organizations : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizations are increasingly complex, information centric and technological, BUT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If knowledge is really relational , THEN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizations are also increasingly dependent on basic human communication – conversation – as the fundamental source of new knowledge . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two Imperatives: Technology and Complexity versus Human Connection </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>This paradox generates an opportunity to explore the following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Since organizational knowledge is seen as largely implicit or tacit, in what sense can any organization be said to own knowledge ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Given that leading organizations are constantly striving for new knowledge creation – i.e., innovation – what does the relational nature of knowledge mean for future organizations ? </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>More questions … </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How will this conception of intentional and personal collaboration for knowledge creation interface with the mindset of the traditional, modernist organization with its notions of proper “businesslike” relationships? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will organizational forms dissolve and deform under the collective weight of hierarchy’s impediments to knowledge flows? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What needs to happen for knowledge intensive firms to evolve into increasingly fertile spaces for trust, conversation and deepening human relationship? </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. <ul><li>At the present moment we cannot avoid the darkening shadow of economic and social events. </li></ul><ul><li>The possibility exists that powerful economic stressors may derail the utopian progression of organizations towards civility, deepening the violence of the collision between modernist and postmodernist discourse. </li></ul>
    10. 10. For more information, contact Neil Olonoff [email_address]
    11. 11. Neil Olonoff [email_address]

    ×