Get best of the week

We analyze the problems of GOST R 53894-2016 “Knowledge Management. Terms and Definitions"

Hello. I am another engineer from the factory, talking about oddities at and around Russian enterprises.

At the end of last year, knowledge management was introduced at my factory. A department was formed for this business, and a higher organization lowered the instruction on “knowledge management”.

For 2 hours I tried to figure out only the definitions. Having understood nothing, he decided to dig deeper, and stumbled upon a series of GOSTs, “Knowledge Management” for organizations, from where the instruction was written off. Without hesitation, I began to study these GOSTs, starting with GOST R 53894-2016 “Knowledge Management”. Terms and Definitions". What I’ll talk about in this article.

What is knowledge management


Knowledge management is the management of the creation, preservation, distribution and application of intellectual capital. He considers knowledge as an independent object, in all forms and manifestations.

Most often organizations are told about knowledge management as a tool for personnel. A mechanism that tells whom and what to teach, how many unique specialists in the organization, who has this or that knowledge.

Therefore, all knowledge management standards are written exclusively for organizations. There is almost nothing about pure knowledge management.

About GOST R 53894-2016


GOST itself is an independent document for organizations, in the form of an alphabetical list of terms with definitions and notes. Based on these definitions, the rest of the GOSTs from the Knowledge Management series are built.

In this description, the GOST problems are already visible:

  • There is no GOST not for organizations where the definitions of knowledge management terms are neutral.
  • There is no sectioning and no structure of the list of terms.
  • The lack of structure in the list hides the lack of structure in the definitions themselves.

That is what I will emphasize, parsing the text and constructing definition schemes.

Key Terms


Any system and idea has definitions on which everything is built. In TRIZ it is “invention”, in biology it is “life”, and in knowledge management it is “data”, “information” and “knowledge”. The whole knowledge management system depends on how these definitions are formulated and related. And that is what GOST offers.

Data


Data: Facts and statistics that can often be analyzed to provide information.

Note - Discrete objective facts (numbers, symbols, numbers) without context and explanation.


Two different definitions.

The second is a chain of terms that have no definitions both in GOST and in links to documents that are not.

The definition itself makes you ask questions:

  • What is the opposite of every link in the chain?
  • What combinations are still there?
  • How are these combinations embedded in knowledge management?

The term “objective” provokes the search for the boundary between the objective and subjective in each case. And none of these questions in GOST there is no answer.

Conclusion: an unreasonable set of words.

The first is the two unrelated parts of “What” and “Why?”. "What?" already a definition, but "For what?" its application.

In the part of “What?” the term “fact” has no definition, and the term “information” has a definition.
Therefore, you must consider it first.

Information


Information: Data in the context to which a specific meaning is attributed.

NOTE The concept of “information” is consistent with the concept of “data”. Adds value values ​​for understanding the subject in a given context. It is a source of knowledge.


One definition, and it refers to the term “data”. Therefore, we consider “information” in the context of the definition of “data”.

The first is a recursive definition chain. You decipher one, then the second, then again the first, and so on to infinity. It turns out that the first definition of data, and the definition of information is nonsense.

Conclusion: nonsense.

The second is a chain with a contradiction: Data is facts without context, and information is data in context. And to this, the incomprehensible term "meaning".

Conclusion: nonsense.

2 out of 3 terms are bullshit. What then with the main term of knowledge management?

Knowledge


Knowledge: The volume of perceptions and skills that are invented by people. The volume of knowledge increases in proportion to the incoming information.
... ...
2 ( ). , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , . . .


Again, two completely different definitions, without a single repeating word.

The first is the combination of people’s perceptions and skills invented by people, without mentioning data and information. Topics: about invented and not invented perceptions are not disclosed. Where to attribute the skills invented not by people is not said.

The second is incoherent dictionary diarrhea, with the spirit of entrepreneurship, the ability to trust, motivation, and a bunch of undefined terms. Definition creates the illusion of reliability by knowledge, through promises “improves the ability to act and make effective decisions”

Conclusion: nonsense.
GOST R 53894-2016 “Knowledge Management. Terms and definitions ”, the main definitions of nonsense Cool. What is there with other terms .......

Associated Terms


Knowledge management


Knowledge Management, MH: A disciplinary approach to achieving the organization’s goals through the optimal use of knowledge.

Notes.

1. Knowledge management includes the development, analysis and implementation of social and technological processes in order to improve the processes of obtaining and applying knowledge in the interests of partners and customers.

2. Planned or ongoing holding of individual events or continuous process management to improve the use of existing or create new individual or collective knowledge resources in order to increase the competitiveness of the enterprise.


A surprisingly good definition, there are only a couple of drawbacks.

  • : ? — ?() — ?(), «» «» , , « ?» .
  • «» , . , — . «».

Conclusion: it will do if you redo it.

The notes are getting worse.



Two “what-for-for” definitions with 9 and 11 segments, and each has problems.
First Note: The “What?” Part speaks only about social and technological processes, ignoring the other types of processes, like any objects, events are not processes. Part “for what?” solely about the effectiveness of working with knowledge, ignoring the very work with knowledge. Part “for whom?” He’s not talking about organization, but about someone else.

Second note:part of “what?” speaks of abstract “individual events” and “continuous driven processes”, in the context of the part “Why?” they can be replaced by simply “processes” and “events”. The “why?” Part, as in the first note, speaks of the same increase in efficiency, only in other words. Part “for what?” also speaks of efficiency.

Conclusion: verbosity, abbreviated to: "processes to increase the efficiency of the use of knowledge."

Culture


Culture: A scientific way of understanding, thinking, perceiving, disseminating, and transmitting knowledge among employees of an organization.

Culture has definitions from cultural studies. Culture is everything that is created by man, and not just knowledge. If you write your definition, it should carry the meaning of these definitions and communicate the context of application. This is not here.

Conclusion: unnecessary initiative.

Good practice


Good practice: The most effective and efficient methods and processes that should be used as supporting (didactic) material in the learning process.


The name is “Good Practice,” how is it? If you look by analogy with "Fair Use", then this is a practice according to all written and not written rules. It’s not like a definition. “Best” involves selection from the best, which is not mentioned in the definition.

The definition itself is divided into 3 parts: “What?”, “What?”, “How?”. "What?" and "What?" related in meaning, if the methods and processes are difficult to combine in one term, then “What?” and "What?" can. For example, in "good practices." Then the “How?” Part can be any, and not just educational.

Conclusion: incorrect construction of the term and definition.

The remaining definitions are at the same level.

Know how


- (know-how): , .
:

1. - , . .

2. .

3. - - .

Strange term. There is no translation of the term from English, but the definition itself contradicts the translation, Know-how is translated as - Know-how, and in the definition of knowledge-opportunities.

Note 1 - the answer to the question "how?" doesn’t solve problems, as in the definition, he says how to solve them. The context of knowledge and experience regarding a task cannot be recognized. It’s easier to specify the task and look at it. The second sentence is unnecessary.
Note 2 - laws and regulations are not interpreted, they are interpreted.
Note 3 - the basis can serve as the old achievements of science and technology.
In general, the term Know-How is present in Russian law as a synonym for the term “trade secret”.

Conclusion: definition without a concept. There is a legislative definition.

Competence


(competency): — , , , - , , .

— , , , ().

The authors of GOST decided not to write a general definition of competence, but to immediately write down its subtypes, thereby prohibiting the use of the term "competency" without clarification.

Organization competence - there are no definitions of “organization skills” and “special knowledge”, there is no explanation of what “processes” are meant, and how they are tied to competencies.
Personnel competence - there is no definition of “special knowledge”, the topic of personal characteristics is not disclosed.

Definitions do not agree on endings: “goal” and “function” are different concepts that are not directly related. Here should be the concept of "effective activity in a given area."

Conclusion: an unfinished definition without a concept.

Knowledge base


(knowledge base) — , .

: , , , . () .


The first - there is no definition of the “volume of knowledge”, and it is not clear what is included there. “Accessibility for the organization” is a vague term. Is availability full, partial, personal, by group?

Conclusion: equating the term "knowledge base" to the term "volume of knowledge of the organization."

The second - there is no concept of “qualification”, previously analyzed terms there are no definitions. It is not clear how information and data themselves support knowledge, what will happen if knowledge is more reliable than the information collected.

Conclusion: not working definition.

Intellectual capital


(intellectual capital): ; , - .

.

1. , .

2. , , .

3. . : , , . , , , , , , ( ).


The definition of intellectual capital is not a definition, it is a task template. There is a clear structure: what? - what to do? - what? - for what? .. There is a local definition of potential, and even there are conditions. Clean task.

A long chain of 9 segments, plus 4 segments in determining potential. 2 conditions, 2 refinements in different areas. Tautology: value, value potential. There is no context for the terms “relationship” and “joint activity”. And most importantly, there is no connection with intelligence, information, data, knowledge, etc.

Conclusion: the definition does not work.



The second and third notes are given by 2 systems of division of intellectual capital, without context of application.



Another third note provides an enumeration-definition of what can be included in intellectual capital. They limited knowledge only to the knowledge of employees, without specifying what kind of knowledge is needed. There is no definition of the term "expert." If you do not take into account the vague terms “knowledge” and “information”, the general structure is normal.

Conclusion: a normal definition with a number of problems.

Fundamental errors


It makes no sense to analyze the rest of the definitions. They will have the same problems as the disassembled ones. After all, they are built on the same mistakes.

The illusion of reliability


All GOST states the positive aspects of knowledge management. "Facts", "best practices" such terms carry a positive attitude. And “increasing efficiency”, “promoting improvement” betray confidence in the reliability of knowledge management.

In fact, not when you can not be sure of the reliability, facts, data, knowledge or information. There are distortions, errors, ownership of not all information, a prism of opinions and concepts that require a neutral approach.

No basis


All definitions are written from scratch, or almost from scratch, and immediately for specific tasks. For instance:

  • The definitions of the term “knowledge management” are written to show the importance and value for organizations, not to mention the knowledge management itself.
  • The definitions of the term “data” are written with the illusion of a sense of reliability, using the terms “fact” and “statistics” to associate with reliability.
  • The definition of the term “knowledge” resembles an overblown list of everything that came to mind to pour water and sell more expensive.

There are no references to computer science, biology, psychology, or logic, although it is precisely these sciences that determine what is: “information”, “skills”, “knowledge” and working with them.

Structure


The terms are not related to a thoughtful system. For example, the same data, information and knowledge of logic should be connected and flow from each other, in fact, the definition of data destroys the definition of information, and knowledge simply vinaigrette.

Here is an example of how it might look :
“ A signal is energy exchange between physical objects and fields, which has a material nature.”
" Data - registered signals, changes in objects and fields under the influence of signals."
“ Information is data (plural) and methods for processing them.” A term that combines any amount of data.
“ Knowledge is structured and interpreted information”



A clear structure, no coloring in reliability, and the definitions themselves provide answers to questions.

Sophistication


Everything that is written in this GOST was in the 2010 version. For 10 years, neither the authors, nor the state corporation Rostec, introducing this GOST, did not notice contradictions, errors, repetitions. This indicates problems with the implementation and use of knowledge management as such.

Attempt to sell knowledge management


The above problems arise from one global problem: the knowledge management described by GOST is similar to advertising for factories. Swollen definitions, strange terms, introduction, saying first “this standard is not intended for experienced practitioners”, and then “when preparing this standard, the authors turned to a wide range of Russian and international sources.”

  • Why there are no references to sources: to make it more difficult to check what is written;
  • Why there is no structure: because we need beautiful and complex phrases that officials and businessmen love;
  • Why there is no elaboration: the task is to sell knowledge management, not sell.

Conclusion


GOST R 543894-2016 is a part of an advertising product aimed at fans of careful production, competencies, and magic techniques. Representing a quilt with holes, a torn seam.

Critical errors were made in the definitions that did not allow building and organizing anything. Using this GOST creates many pitfalls and traps in the work. From overconfidence to not understanding what it is.

According to the results of the analysis of GOST R 543894-2016, I recommend not to use it in principle, and in principle to bypass the entire series of GOSTs on the “Knowledge Management”.

PS


I hope the article will help you deal with Knowledge Management, more than me in my factory.

More articles:


All Articles