THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF HUMAN SYSTEM BIOLOGY-BASED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

[Md Santo]

Our (Mobee Knowledge) model on KM to great extend depended on our paradigm on Knowledge, its analogy with Human System Biology, and on our DI – KW model as follow (see the Attachment) :

• Derived from our postulate that DIKW model is not a continuum, we’ve developed DI – KW model resulting consideration that Knowledge is human knowing tools achieved as inborn as well as acquired (visit our Knowledge-Base on DI – KW Model http://delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/di-kwmodel - 12 articles)

• Our peripheral nerve systems or human senses is “Knowledge with Lower Consciousness” (KLC). Our central nerve system or mind-brain is “Knowledge with Medium Consciousness” (KMC). Our consciousness-DNA is “Knowledge with Higher Consciousness” (KHC). KLC plus KMC plus KHC making Tacit Knowledge. There are 2 types of Tacit Knowledge, Human Tacit Knowledge (HTK) and Organizational Tacit Knowledge (OTK). What is called as Explicit Knowledge is just codified OTK. Both HTK and OTK are leveraged by Human Learning and Organizational Learning respectively.

• Our model on Human System Biology-based KM (HSBKM) ( visit our Knowledge-Base http://delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/humansystembiology - 23 articles ) indicating, KLC resembles KM Tools comprising IT/ICT, Web 1.0 and 2.0 including Social Media platforms. KMC resembles KM Process Framework comprising Human (Tacit) Mind including Web 3.0 and/or Semantic Web and also Artificial Intelligence. And, KHC resembles KM Standards (KM Culture and Value) comprising Human Social Behavior, Codified / Explicit Knowledge representing Organizational Tacit, Organizational Culture (Learning Organization) respectively.

• The underlying determinant factor on knowledge as human knowing tools related with consciousness as well as KM corrrelated with human system biology which is rooted from our DI – KW Model ( visit our Knowledge-Base on Consciousness integrated within DI – KW model at http://delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/consciousness+di-kwmodel - 8 articles )

To get more comprehensive insight, visit also our Knowledge-Base http://delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/knowledge (41 articles) and http://delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/consciousness (19 articles) and http://www.scribd.com/md_santo (19 presentation articles on trends of Knowledge)
And, to learn comprehensively on KM Tools, KM Process Framework and KM Standards as integrated entities, visit our Knowledge-Base http://delicious.com/mobeeknowledge/kmtools+kmprocessframework+kmst... (34 articles)

[David Griffiths]

First of all, thank you for making all this research available to us.

I've been reading it with interest as I am engaged in a similar process of model development. The one thing that I am always interested in is how an organisation can take a given model and use it to create value. There are too many questions that I would love to have the opportunity to discuss with you, but this forum is probably not the best place for this. For example, on the knowledge metrics side there is mention of Lean Six-Sigma, which could be seen as an efficiency driven process based on hard data and yet knowledge by nature leans more towards effectiveness and soft data processes (I've recently been involved with a MNC where this has become a problem). Also, as another example, terms such as 'explicit knowledge being codified OTK' could find themselves exposed to similar criticisms as those levelled at Nonaka, in that this moves against Polanyi's defintions of tacit and explicit knowledge.

I'm sure these questions are answered within your extensive body of literature and I apologise if I have jumped the gun, but I wanted to give you an initial reaction to the model. I think it's exciting to see different ideas emerging in the KM field, but fundamentally I am always interested in links to organisational value drivers, operationalisation, portability across business sectors and founding research.

I would love to have the opportunity to chat and exchange ideas and thank you again for taking the time to share your work...

David

[Md Santo]

Dear David,

I appreciate what you’ve done with your research on KM model development. Yes, I positively agree with you mentioning ……I am always interested in is how an organisation can take a given model and use it to create value…...it's exciting to see different ideas emerging in the KM field, but fundamentally I am always interested in links to organisational value drivers, operationalisation, portability across business sectors and founding research...

By nature, since Knowledge as well as KM are Complex (adaptive) System, and by using an Indonesian proverb saying “many roads lead to Rome”, that means just about we could have many output regardless the method used in KM, but the most important expectation is, we all have one or at least similar outcome to get the value into operationalization for the benefit of human life

On developing KM metric, currently we’ve been developing a candidate model generated from Human System Biology-based KM to measuring the process-based competency as KM maturity measurement and also to measuring the activity-based capability as well. The metric will operate through Process Classification Framework (PCF) protocol. For a while we name it as “Mobee Knowledge Capability Maturity Model (MKCMM)”. Considering it is still in “beta version”, you could take a “peep”, but unfortunately written in Bahasa (Indonesian language) at http://www.scribd.com/doc/30824620/Document-introduction-to-Indones... especially pp 17-18

Regards,
Md Santo