This post signals the first of a series of occasional posts that will explore Knowledges Interchange as a positive step beyond Knowledge Management (KM).  I’ll explore the proposition that the theory and practice of KM are based on a weak paradigm  In the first place, I’m arguing throughout this blog that the idea that there is one Knowledge makes no sense in this world of complexities. Secondly, the notion that there is one Knowledge that can be managed is a curious idea that is easily challenged.

I want to frame my challenges to KM with some of the literature of the field. Many would agree that Nonaka and Takeuchi’s 1995 book entitled The Knowledge Creating Company  (See References) formed the foundation of the KM “movement”.  As the authors explain in their Preface, they first began to study the Japanese product development process in 1983, and published an article about their findings in 1986. They used a rugby ball metaphor to underscore their conclusions:

o   Speed and flexibility characterize the way the rugby ball is passed within the team and up the field

o  The ball contains a shared understanding of the company ideals, values and emotions

o  The ball does not move in a predictably, linear way, but rather in response to the direction of the game

o  Intensive and labour-intensive efforts are required of team members

o  Knowledge creation, dissemination and application are all a factor of human knowledge

So if I want to discuss Knowledges Interchange, I’ll have to come up with a sports metaphor of my own.  I’ll go think about that for a while,  and get back to you.