Different between Information and knowledge

 I had the privilege of sharing a workshop with Larry Prusak earlier this week. 
He illustrated the distinction between knowledge and information with the following simple
example: 

“Imagine that you’re about to go on vacation somewhere you’ve never been before. You can
either read lots of brochures and lonely planet guides, or you can have a conversation with
someone who has already been there. You have to choose just one of these options. 
Which one would you choose?” 

[Needless to say, everybody in the room chose the second option.] 

*That’s* the difference between information and knowledge”. 

Thanks Larry!

Problems with knowledge definition in KM and perspective on it

I want to open discussion and put in a little bit not common perspective understanding of KM and meaning of
Knowledge. 

In general there are few approaches to knowledge in KM: 

1) information based (model data-information-knowledge-wisdom). Used more often. 
2) human or process oriented ( when we talk about managing complex set of dynamic skills, know-how, etc) 
3) philosophical perspective ( when we talk about knowledge as "justified true believe"). The most rare or never
used? one in KM. 

I want to discuss second and third ones mostly and put a question in this way: 
If knowledge is a human faculty, and totally belongs to human being a justified true belief and can be managed
only by individual. Is it in principle possible to manage somebody's knowledge?
7 months ago

 Like
 Comment
 Follow
 Flag
 More

34 comments • Jump to most recent comments

MdUnfollow
Md Santo • Eclectic definition of K / KM suggested to get the most objective meaning :

• On your 2nd and 3rd issues, you’re suggested to visit our URL http://bit.ly/GUIvoN-“COMPREHENSIVE
GUIDE TO TAXONOMY OF FUTURE KNOWLEDGE”. Actually it is derived from Nature Knowledge
Theory and on managing somebody’s knowledge as your inquiry could be described among others through the
interaction of Knowledge Interfaces (KI) as mentioned at http://bit.ly/HBTntZ - “Mind Brain – Knowledge
Interface Connection : Nature Knowledge Theory applied to Neuro Science”
• Eclectic definition (choosing what is best or preferred from a variety of sources or styles, within Nature
Knoweledge Theory context) of K/KM by means is the best way to get the most objective understanding
7 months ago• Like




DavidUnfollow
David Gurteen • No it is not possible to manage someone's knowledge :-)
7 months ago• Like



2

Follow Richard
Richard Veryard • As I understand it, Vasily's first question is whether "knowledge is a human faculty, and
totally belongs to human being a justified true belief and can be managed only by individual".

There always seems to be a difficulty in relating individual cognitive capacities with collective cognitive
capacities, but my own view is that it does make sense to talk about the collective knowledge of a group or
organization, and that this is something that can be managed. See my post Does Organizational Cognition Make
Sense.

http://demandingchange.blogspot.com/2012/04/does-organizational-cognition-make.html

An important issue for knowledge management in the enterprise is how the organization collectively
distinguishes between justified true beliefs and unjustified false ones. (This is one of the many reasons to care
about organizational intelligence.)

Vasily's second question is whether it is possible to manage somebody's knowledge. Surely that's what we pay
schoolteachers to do - to manage the knowledge of our children. There are all sorts of other professions that
involve a combination of communication and influence, and these could surely be regarded as attempts to
manage the knowledge of a target audience.

Let me anticipate two objections to both of these answers.

The first likely objection to both of my answers is whether that counts as managing, or whether we should use
another word, like tending or nurturing or coaching or something else. But to the extent that we give
management-style targets to teachers, based on the performance of their pupils, the word management seems to
be an accurate description.

The second likely objection to both answers is an ethical one. Clearly there are ethical problems, especially if
managing knowledge slides into manipulation and spin. (Steve Jobs was often praised for his skill at "reality
distortion".) But there are many other kinds of management that also have ethical implications. So that doesn't
make my answers incorrect, just troubling.
7 months ago• Like



 Follow Steve
Steve Moore • It is not possible to manage someone's knowledge but it is possible to manage someone's access
to prior knowledge, and support this access through such interventions as education (teaching, mentoring),
considered taxonomy and indexing, and formal and free discussions (CoP's for example).
7 months ago• Like




MdUnfollow
Md Santo • Yes, within context of Human Organizational (Collective / Social) Learning covering Codified /
Explicit Knowledge, Human Social Behavior, Organizational Cummulative Culture (Learning Organization)
such as CoP, from my point of view it is possible to manage someone’s knowledge through interactions of
personal KM with organizational KM - http://bit.ly/HBTntZ
7 months ago• Like




Follow Yang
Yang Lin • So so many previous posts have addressed this. Arguably, knowledge is manageable.
7 months ago• Like




Follow Albert
Albert Simard • Vasily - Let me shift the philosophical definition of knowledge "Justified true belief" to a
psychological definition advanced by Pigeau; "Anything that an individual believes to be true and places into
memory for future use. 

The first definitions, although robust, requires so much explanation and interpretation that I never use it with
managers. It's primary value IMHO is in it's capacity to generate debate among philosophers. 

Gotta go - be back latter.

6 months ago• Like



1
 Follow jon
jon thorne • for me ... it is not possible to manage others people's knowledge. It is possible to help people
understand and manage their own motivation. That will improve people's ability to manage their own
knowledge.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Albert
Albert Simard • Response - Part 2 

The second definition conveniently sidesteps having to define either belief or truth. And it also doesn't require
that we measure quality or degree of evidence. It may be based on rigorous logic, evidence, and reason or it may
be basless. 

So, of what value is something so loosey-goosey that cannot be described or managed? This definition is key in
transforming explicit knowledge into authoritative knowledge. It's simply what a decision maker thinks to be
true or wants as an outcome and that they base their decisions on. Although it is quite beyond the influence of
KM, we have to understand that it is the gate that we must pass through to get our marvelous KM project
approved and funded. Or any organizational activity, for that matter. 

Bottom line - having won a Nobel prize for creating knowledge conveys considerable scientific authority but
zero organizational authority. Like it or not, the latter can only come from organizational decision makers.
Hence, the importance of a psychological definition of knowledge that coexists with your favorite definition.
6 months ago• Like




Follow James
James Gunn • Hi Vasily, 

One of the things that I've gradually realised is that KM isn't just about the individual's knowledge. It's also
about what 'the organisation' knows; in a funny way there's tacit knowledge built into the organisational culture
and the processes - people often forget or never knew why they do things a certain way, but they "just do" and
things work out. 

And for the KM that is about the individual's knowledge, we can only manage the part that the individual is
willing to share (although in my experience subject matter experts have never refused to tell all). (How do I
know ? tools and methods is the short answer) 

I won't talk about using software to manage knowledge since your definition in (1) only included
information :-). 
So my answer is "Yes, with a slight but....." 

HTH 
James
6 months ago• Like




Follow Richard
Richard Veryard • Lots of differing opinions here as to whether it is possible to manage knowledge.
Presumably this is because we either disagree about what counts as management or we disagree about what
counts as knowledge. Or perhaps both.

For the sake of argument, I adopt Fayol's definition of management: to forecast and plan, to organize, to
command, to coordinate and to "control" (i.e. monitor and adjust).

Here are three examples that I should regard as attempts to manage knowledge, since they all involve some
degree of planning, organization, monitoring and adjustment.

Firstly, an apprenticeship scheme, which puts an inexperienced person alongside an experienced person, with
the explicit intention of transferring knowledge from one to the other.

Secondly, a censorship and indoctrination scheme, whereby a government interferes with communications to its
citizens, in order to shape their knowledge.

And thirdly, a covert public education scheme, which inserts information into entertainment programmes. (It is
said that the popular UK radio programme "The Archers" was given stories about farming practices by the
British Ministry of Agriculture.)

Obviously we can debate how successful any of these might be, or how ethical, but surely we can't refuse to call
something management simply because it doesn't always do what we want it to.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Nick
Nick Milton • We have this discussion on Linked-In on a regular basis - "Can you manage knowledge, and if
not, can you use the term "knowledge management"". 

For me, knowledge is an intangible, but so are many other "focuses for management", such as Safety,
Reputation, Relationships. Much as you can talk about Safety Management, or Customer Relationship
Management, despite Safety and Relationships being intangible, so you can talk about Knowledge Management,
depite Knowledge being intangible. 

"Knowledge Management" does not mean "managing little pieces of knowledge", it means "Management, with
Knowledge as a Focus". It means managing the processes, roles, technologies, relationships, behaviours and
attitudes as a result of which high-quality Knowledge flows to the people who need it, so they can make the key
decisions on which the success of the organisation depends.
6 months ago• Like



3

DavidUnfollow
David Gurteen • Well said Nick. Just because you cannot manage someone's knowledge does not make
Knowledge Management ridiculous. I look at the term Knowledge Management or KM as a name or a label. It
is not meant to be descriptive.
6 months ago• Like



1

Follow Chris
Chris Collison • Agreed. You can't manage someone else's knowledge (I have enough trouble managing my
own!) - but you can apply management focus to motivate and encourage people to share it, seek it and develop it
with others.

The DIKW 'continuum' creates confusion because whilst Data Management *is* about managing tangible bits
of data, and Information Management *is* (primarily) about managing tangible bits of information - Knowledge
Management operates on a different level.

Snowden's statement that "Our Knowledge is what we use to turn data into information." illustrates this nicely.
6 months ago• Like



1

DavidUnfollow
David Gurteen • Yet again, spot on! Thanks Chris.
6 months ago• Like




MdUnfollow
Md Santo • Suggested solution for KMers : get shifted from DIKW continuum toward Nature Knowledge
continuum and act the New Copernican Principle :

• The essence of present and the coming soon future arguments among KMers discussions actually rooted from
striking different paradigm among us. The different lies on the kinds of our school of thoughts. The first is
DIKW continuum based where “Mind Brain or Human Being is the source and center of Consciousness”
paradigm. The second is Nature Knowledge continuum based where “The Universe or the Nature Knowledge is
the source and center of Consciousness” paradigm

• The first paradigm actually is human artefacts since scientific mindset era began at 17th century and achieving
maturity at the end of 20th century. Further, Nature Knowledge continuum considered as the substitute of
DIKW continuum for the next evolution of Science

• The staging of current evolution in SciTech : “Within DIKW continuum, evolution of Science already progress
from DI domain toward KW domain marked with prominent K (KM), but noted with ambiguity among scientist
(KMers) due to not enough awareness on striking difference between DI with KW. DI is object and passive. K
is subject, alive, conscious and considered as psycho-somatic entity. Knowledge itself becoming “the edge of
Science” ( http://bit.ly/pOSGBt )

• To addressing the coming next gen KM and to cope with the problem on the issue of K/KM definition, we
suggested the eclectic definition for both K and/or KM (http://bit.ly/GUIvoN -“COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
TO TAXONOMY OF FUTURE KNOWLEDGE”) as well as suggestion in doing campaign
on http://bit.ly/KAIs2U - “Knowledge – driven New Copernican Principle”
6 months ago• Like




Follow Yang
Yang Lin • No shared understandings, no argument. Many people here don't share conceptual understandings of
knowledge and management. So what I can do is to understand more about others' opinions. One point I firmly
believe in is: if knowledge is not manageable, there is no way the term knowledge management can survive in a
long run. It is ridiculous if I tell someone that I am a soccer player and then say "oh, by the way, soccer is not
playable." Or I am a crane operator and then say "sorry, it is impossible to operate a crane." I think those who
firmly believe that knowledge is not manageable should really start searching a proper label for what they do to
better represent the nature of their work. But, what is it? How could it sustain?

@Nick, referring to KM as "management as K as a focus" is quite ambiguous, if I want to understand whether

you believe knowledge is manageable or not. Does that statement/explanation sound convincing if it is not? If
yes, how?
6 months ago• Like




Follow Steve
Steve Moore • @Yang Lin. Hi, using your analogy of soccer - I can teach someone the rules of the game, I can
show someone how to kick a ball, but how they blend these things to become a player in a team (either amatuer,
professional or international) is entirely up to their own abilities and tenacity to practice. 
As with knowledge, we can show people how to do things, we can point them in the direction of where prior
knowledge is stored - but it is up to the individual to access and use it - again down to their own abilities and
tenacity. 

I believe the knowledge that we manage is the externally available knoweldge (explicit if you will) and sign post
its whereabouts. Some knowledge is made available through insightful individuals who are willing to share their
hard won knowledge (tacit) with others. We manage this knowledge by signposting those individuals to others,
or the individuals themselves make their Knowledge openly available (this discussion thread being an
example). 

However, if we are discussing the management or creation of new or innovative knowledge, that is surely a case
of selecting individuals capable of interpreting the prior knowledge and applying it innovatively to
new/different/previously undiscovered issues. That I believe is a more complex issue
6 months ago• Like




MdUnfollow
Md Santo • Manageability of DIKW-based Knowledge vs Manageability of Nature Knowledge-based
Knowledge :

• Based on DIKW continuum model, Knowledge considered as Flow or Thing. Based on Nature Knowledge
continuum model, Knowledge considered as Consciousness

• Generated from DIKW model there are Tacit, Explicit and Implicit Knowledge. Generated from Nature
Knowledge model, and Knowledge Interface (KI) concept as derivative of Nature Knowledge model, there are
nine types of Knowledge and some types have higher level than other types ( http://bit.ly/HBTntZ - “Mind Brain
– Knowledge Interface Connection : Nature Knowledge Theory applied to Neuro Science” ). The higher level of
Knowledge, showed by each of their Knowledge Interface (KI) features could manage the others Knowledge
with lower level. The organizational KM based Knowledge have higher level vertically with individual KM
based Knowledge and horizontally with the same Nature Knowledge group. To mention, within Nature
Knowledge continuum, there are three groups of KM model each has three types of Knowledge Interfaces.
Those three groups are Human/Individual Knowledge, Nature Knowledge and Organizational Nutured
Knowledge (KM) respectively
6 months ago• Like




Follow Nick
Nick Milton • I don't think the question "is knowledge manageable" is a useful question. It has been asked for
years, and the answer is always "it depends what you mean by knowledge, and it depends what you mean by
manageable." It's an argument that has taken us nowhere, despite having been around for 15 years or more. 

I would rather focus on the question "are there things we can do, in Management terms, to deliver greater value
from Knowledge", the answer to which is definitely Yes.
6 months ago• Like


 

Follow Yang
Yang Lin • Pragmatically speaking, I don't disagree, Nick. My answer is also a Yes to your question. I have to
say that question is super important. Conceptually, there are very reasons as to why the question has been there
for so long and still considered critical by many people. Do we have Nobel Prize for management? Do
management theorists want that happen? Do we have a KM discipline? Have you seen a KM bachelor degree in
UK or US? All these fundamental questions are crucial to help KM gain a place in academia. Both theory and
practice must work together to push KM move forward.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Steve
Steve Moore • If knowledge is gained through experience and answering questions, are we just exploring the
knowledge to be gained about Knowledge Management? 

If so then surely we are in reality managing knowledge through a self regulating discussion thread. 

I assume that some one somewhere is capturing the relevant gems so they can be recounted for future use.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Nick
Nick Milton • "surely we are in reality managing knowledge through a self regulating discussion thread" 

That might depend on whether we are managing knowledge, or stating opinions!

6 months ago• Like




Follow Steve
Steve Moore • My point entirely, an opinion stated elicits a response, through an exchange of
opinions/ideas/concepts changes are initiated and knowledge emerges. 

I do not make a distinction as to whether this is good or useful knowledge - simply that it is. 
Others can make the judgement as to how useful or otherwise the discussion has been. I find my thinking
challenged and my understanding progressing - but I dont always agree with everything written. 

So my enhanced knowledge is self regulated and managed.

6 months ago• Like




Follow Yang
Yang Lin • Hi Steve, regarding your post two days ago, I think if tacit knowledge is not manageable, the
statement of "knowledge is manageable" is still invalid, despite that many people have problems with the
concept "explicit knowledge." I respect their reasons.

I think this question highly depends on how we perceive management. I think the "M" of "KM" consists of
identification, acquisition, retention, sharing and re-use. I see the control in KM is the control of knowledge
flows/KM activities. I don't think we can control knowledge, i.e., setting up a goal for knowledge. It is like
setting up a goal for a person's blood and monitoring the compliance, metaphorically speaking. That does not
make much sense. 

I know there must be better metaphors.When we talk about the "traditional" sense of management, there are five
functions: planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling. You will see that this has a strong
implication for managing people. Today, we know that management is not just about managing people but
available organizational resources. People sometimes talk about risk management. Do we plan, organize, staff
and lead risks? Does that sound odd? I know there are relationship and finance managers as well. The sense of
management, based on your managing targets, changes.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Steve
Steve Moore • @Yang Lin. Hi, I think I am coming to the point of thinking that Explicit knowledge is
manageable but Tacit knowledge is not. 

The tacit being that which is developed/bought to being from an individual's application or extension of
accessed explicit knowledge.
6 months ago• Like




Follow jon
jon thorne • Chris ... I totally agree with what you say ... especially this bit 

"You can't manage someone else's knowledge (I have enough trouble managing my own!) - but you can apply
management focus to motivate and encourage people to share it, seek it and develop it with others" 

I would add that behind the word motivation ... is a key choice ... that for me has a massive impact on how I
share, seek, and develop knowledge .... 

Do I want to be externally motivated? 

If I take this option ... it means my motive to socalise is to be accepted by someone and something. So I
socialise to learn what people want from me. And to learn what organisations want from me. Then I succeed by
delivering what they want. My need to be accepted makes it hard for me to walk away from a rejection. I feel
weak if I walk away. So if I feel rejected I fight back. I dare people to reject me ... so that they know that if they
reject me I will fight back hard. And I work hard to become the person who decides If others are rejected or
accepted. 

Do I want to be internally motivated? 

This means my motive to socialise is to discover my own motives. Once I know my own motives I can succeed
in my own eyes. This means I am someone who eagerly and with confidence ... takes responsibility for
everything that I do. I am someone who holds myself accountable to people who matter to me. I do things
because I mean good. I never do things out of fear of what others think or because I need their praise. I need no
master to punish me to make me behave as I ought
6 months ago• Like



1

Follow Pavel
Pavel Kraus • Can we manage someones else's knowledge? I frequently surprise my KM students with a simple
exercise. They make their own faintly developed knowledge about their future career systematically explicit,
firm and are able to share it with others. This exercise demonstrates one can do it. I guess, it really depends on
what we really mean by managing someone else's knowledge. In a human interaction I think it is possible. In a
kind of remote control, rather not.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Regina
Regina Cianconi • I agree with Nick and David. We do not "manage" knowledge in the same way we manage
tangible assets (controlling, organizing, and so on). We only manage the context where management is
produced. I undesrstand "knowledge management" as a concept with its own meaning, not as the sum of the
meaning of knowledge + management concepts.
6 months ago• Like



 Follow Vasily
Vasily Ryzhonkov • Coming back from my HoneyMoon (reason why I was not posting for a long time). 

I'm so happy that people are willing to share their knowledge and thoughts here, really appreciate this. Big
amount of comments prove my underlying thought "knowledge" issue is still controversial. I want to analyze
them and stimulate further discussion. 

Will be back in a few days. Thanks a lot for the very useful information. 

Cheers, Vasily.
6 months ago• Like




Follow Bill
Bill Kaplan • Keep it simple to ensure understanding at all levels

Knowledge = Information (explicit, codified) + Experience (personal,tacit)

Organizations that can leverage an improved ability (agility) to solve problems and enable better solutions.

more at: http://www.workingknowledge-csp.com/Creating_Value.html and look at the first figure.

best

Bill
6 months ago• Like




Follow Pavel
Pavel Kraus • The most prevailing knowledge definition within the «DACH KM Glossary» goes in the
direction that knowledge is what you have in your head at any given time. Information is what is outside of your
head and it comes in all sort of quality levels. I have been using this definition in many KM projects in the last
15 years with great benefit.
6 months ago• Like



 Follow Chris
Chris Collison • I had the privilege of sharing a workshop with Larry Prusak earlier this week. 
He illustrated the distinction between knowledge and information with the following simple example: 

“Imagine that you’re about to go on vacation somewhere you’ve never been before. You can either read lots of
brochures and lonely planet guides, or you can have a conversation with someone who has already been there.
You have to choose just one of these options. 
Which one would you choose?” 

[Needless to say, everybody in the room chose the second option.] 

*That’s* the difference between information and knowledge”. 

Thanks Larry!
6 months ago• Like



3

Follow Dr Linne
Dr Linne Bourget MA MBA PhD • Working across 9 fields of knowledge and adding a 10th, with a fast brain
speed and integrative systems thinking style and also being a 4th generation intuitive, the idea of organizing
what goes through my mind in a day is daunting indeed. That said, in a client project if needed I could codify
and categorize the knowledge I am using to analyze, intuit, design and deliver interventions that deliver not only
great results but simultaneous multiple layered benefits. Clients just want the results not the underlying
knowledge frameworks so have not been asked to do so yet....would be an investment of time and money of
course....fascinating question, thank you!! 

Any organization may not need to access all knowledge in employees, just that which is pertinent...of course the
issue of prioritizing requires extensive work by the organization to build the most useful KM program(me). 
Appreciatively, 
Dr. Linne