Knowledge As Emerging Patterns Of Interaction

In the above quote from A???? Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ", this is illustrated with a philosophical background illustrates interesting, despite its inherent humor. The supercomputer Deep Thought took seven and a half million years to a few with the answer to Life, the Universe and everything the world, a famous???? 42 '. In the next chapter of the book The immediate consequence is that after the first (sic!) has to know the â?? Ultimate Question' (Adams, 1995: 128) . Then it was decided to build the Earth as the next-generation supercomputer to find that the Ultimate Question. Later in the book is clear that the ultimate question is â?? Six of nine '(Adams, 1995: 305) . At least in base thirteen. Everything is contextual, you see.

These metaphors are powerful ways of looking at human organizations. The principles of self-organizations, the appearance, a???? Edge of chaos ", etc, from the complexity sciences may offer interesting new ideas on issues that face organizations. Given the continued fighting in business organizations to find ways to â?? Coping with the inherent uncertainty they face, these relatively new theory helps to make sense. But, as with all metaphors, there is a risk that we take too far. People started to have conversations about whether the organizations are a CAS or ESC . Then, by inference, we start to say that organizations must therefore comply with this and that observation of a CAS. An interesting, for example, is the debate among professionals in the organization is or not?? Therefore, "(sic!) Â?? Human systems "out of a??? Simple Rules." This, in turn, is inferred from the simple computer systems in which boids â?? "After being programmed with three â?? Start simple rules" that shows the behavior that has been characterized as â?? Go ", much like a 2D projection of flocks of birds. But keep in mind that in reality, these are just blips boids on a computer screen. The â?? Simple Rules" can adequately describe the behavior of â?? Blips' on the screen. But that's all I can do! They can not describe the behavior of real life that come to everyone. And much less describe how birds reproduce or multiply. Just a rich description of something as complex as a

living creature. But since the observed â?? Herds were so convincing, it has brought more complex the systems somehow emerging from simple rules. From a CAS can emerge from simple rules, so that human organizations, so that people demand. Therefore, some people with some (but not more) the notion of state of complexity theory that we have to do is â?? Only find simple rules. These are often characterized by â?? Values. "Stating the simple rules that becomes a??? The definition of securities" of the organization. This is the reverse logic. An organization is not a CAS. Can be modeled as a CAS, and as a metaphor that can provide very powerful. But what are the organizations, really? It may be useful to start with what we know???? Security "on human organizations. They consist of people interacting in their daily (work) practices. Therefore, the purpose of this paper we start with that: the interaction between people in the organization that we will call?? social thing. " My thesis in this paper is that a different metaphor of a â?? System may be more useful to describe (changes in) knowledge of the organization. The recent idea of Ralph Stacey response processes in complex organizations is not as systems, but rather choose to pay attention to the interaction between people (Stacey, 2000). This opinion reveals that organizations are systems, as such, but they seem to like the process of people interacting. For the purposes of this article see this as a very useful approach. These processes consist of???? The narrative, as the sequences of gesture and response between human bodies "(Stacey, 2000: 146-148). In these interactions of people constantly reinterpret their own experiences (â?? Past ") to act (â?? Gesture ') to achieve expected future state. This expectation, in turn, is fed back into the interpretation of past experiences. Every gesture triggers a process similar to others who then â?? Reply with a new gesture. With many interactions this is a very complex process (hence the term â ?? Complex response processes of relationship).

interaction, as is happening in some organizations â?? issues "are

arise. These issues arise because of a common intention differences

future, actual and existing experience and intentions and actual problems

Existing exist to achieve this desired future.

This emergency is self-organization in nature. This is where ideas of complexity theory

are very helpful.

For the purposes of this article I will call this process of new items

???? pattern "of interaction between people.

There are consequences that are extremely important in this process.

On the one hand, we must realize that not all participants in this process are also

?? autonomous'. Crucial, as also noted by Stacey C. s. (Stacey, 2000: 213-4),

are the power relationships that exist in all interactions. â?? Some people are more

autonomous than others.

Second, all action is action that is interpreted by each individual differently.

No â?? knowable truth "different from what resonates with each individual

past experiences (sic!) and their individual intentions (sic!). Since all individual < br />
past experiences and their individual intentions are different, so is each individual

â???? Truth. "

Also, especially, there is no guarantee that the people speak???? the truth. "

All people â?? gesture" to achieve their own desired future. In many

organizations openly and honestly sharing information is the norm rather

than the exception. Often this is due to the effects expected if the truth be spoken

. This means that the talks, as seen in all organizations,

are in fact a continuous negotiation of each person???? Intent "and

???? Expectations." Thus, the intentions of other people become one???? That allows'/>

Richard Knowles (2002) has developed structured forms to examine the

interaction processes and patterns emerging. The combination of

complex processes Stacey response theory with self-organization Knowles

theories of leadership could form a solid basis for study of knowledge

processes.

This is a paper about knowledge processes in organizations. We looked

organizations like the previous processes.

I would use a definition of Dee Hock (1999), director-CEO emeritus of VISA to

???? knowledge "and the hierarchy that he puts into it.

noise data

Information ;

Knowledge Understanding

The wisdom of noise is the undifferentiated matter happening to our around;

data is the first level of organization of the noise. It may be discerned and

differentiated by the human mind

The information is the next level of organization of data. Patterns and

relations are starting to add is, a (Bateson?? Difference

that makes the difference ") < br />
Knowledge is the organization of information in a way that the

proper context it becomes useful to act, decide or create new knowledge .

Understanding is the organization of knowledge by individuals in a way

useful to conceive, anticipate, evaluate and judge. This is a

unique and personal experience.

Wisdom is attained when the understanding is informed by the intention,

ethical principle to remember the past and projection into the future.

Science, including science organization, has traditionally focused on data, < br />
information and knowledge and has largely ignored understanding and

Wisdom. In the context of this article I would like to keep that knowledge

not realize that it is useful to sustainability of organizations.

In the context of complex processes of response a deep understanding and wisdom < , br />
in the above definitions, it is of utmost importance.

For long-term survival and health of the processes of knowledge organizations

must recognize the need for understanding and wisdom.

This is an important statement.

; If you look at some things jump:

The information itself is not knowledge, information not just about having enough

. â ???? just a book "is not enough. That's one?? Solo 'information;

The understanding is that the pieces of information are integrated; />
knowledge, in that sense, has the potential to be new. It also says

more you need a piece of information. This means at least one < br />
form of diversity; />
This combination has to happen in one???? The proper context. " So, without

combination happening in the real world (context) there is no knowledge

only pieces of information:

This knowledge should be applied. Crucial. If we can not use the combination

pieces of information to act is by definition useless

This knowledge in itself can act as a new piece of information to the

create new knowledge. This is the â?? Recursion 'in this definition.

Understand that occurs when individuals are able to design and implement

Seeing the importance of understanding, so pay attention to

intention, ethics and principles, will lead to?? organizational wisdom "that

sits on individuals

statement, â?? knowledge "is continually expanding in the context of

requires combining the information available to â?? act."

In this definition, knowledge is not something tangible. It can not be encoded or

removed. The information can be. We store information in databases.

Knowledge must be contextual. Given that the context exists only if and when people

apply that knowledge can not be codified.

So, books or documents or databases are ways of encoding information. By reading

start one???? Contextualization 'this information in our heads. In this process

begin to create our own interpretation of this information. This interpretation is

depends on our own personal experiences and our own individual past

expectations for the future. It is well â?? It resonates with our experience or does not

. The information comes from a book or paper or any other source that

by default always be different to the reader that the writer. Meaning, therefore,

is being created by the â?? Do not answer "for the â?? Gesture.

The reading for the second time around again and give different interpretations -

therefore different pieces of information. Even the writer interprets his own

a round of written differently next time.

This has the effect that each piece of information, by default,

already have in it a degree of diversity, if more than one person at any given time is

interacting around this piece of information. Stacey (2000: 202-6)

quite convincing states that it is this very diversity that makes one???? New "

may arise from interactions. Without it, nothing new can happen. Put in a more

lyrical form, someone in their own in a remote and isolated desert can

acquire a massive amount of information (books, etc.) without interaction

( diversity) real innovation will not occur.

If people interact they do in a given context. They â?? Being "in a
< br /> time and in a certain place. Individual experiences of people continually

recreated in this context. This context is the perception that (!) Question about

that people can interact. Therefore pieces of information continually

change. Therefore, reflecting the ideas of the complex processes of response

relating in organizations, their gestures and responses continually

; change.

This is another way of saying that every action of people do, the decisions they make,

information they think will change in each different circumstance.

The emerging knowledge in gesture / response process as a social act.

Since these gestures and responses are the complex result of the

many individual's past experiences and future expectations, so knowledge is

emerging from past experiences and future expectations in the context

perceive the issue in hand.

In paragraph 2 above, with continuous interaction

expectations and experiences begin to show complex topics or â??? ? patterns. "

knowledge can therefore be seen as a pattern that emerges from these interactions

.

people's actions are, in turn, governed by the emerging pattern thus closing the loop

. This loop helps us understand the processes of knowledge in the organizations.

What we can learn from paragraph 3 is that organizations do not learn.

people as individuals learn.

The organizations are forums for people to interact. The organizations have since

any intention on the part of those working in / for them.

These people, however, are not isolated from the rest of their lives and context

outside the organization. If we mention a past

individual experiences we refer to all their individual experiences in the business

organization, at home, at their sports clubs, universities, vacation, etc..

Organizational processes are those processes of interaction that we have called

complex processes response relationship.

In the previous section we described a ?? knowledge "is one of the

emerging patterns in the process of organization.

But at the same time, this pattern is the process of interaction!

action arises from the interactions, while using the knowledge that emerges from

that very action!

Cohen and Stewart (1997: 414 - 22) the call for a relationship as in this case between

organization and knowledge of a â?? accomplice "relationship.

The processes of knowledge organization

action arises from the co-evolutionary relationship between knowledge and

organization. Therefore, it is inherently impossible to dissociate the knowledge of

the organizing process. From an organizational entity that emerges from this < br />
relationship of complicity, knowledge and processes of the organization of the gang are

?? organization.
;
This has some important implications for how we see organizational learning.

We can describe the learning in organizations such as the continuous pattern
;
is happening in the process of interactions.

Knowles (2002: 107-23) introduced the model of the process EnneagramTM.

This model is a way to show the perspectives of interactions and

process patterns. It does so through multiple (nine, a???? (? ????) Ennea 'is?? Nine'

griego) in unique perspectives.

interactions, People go through all the perspectives of all at the same time.

This is not a linear process at all. The nine elements are connected, but some

connections between the elements will be stronger than others. That depends on

people interact, where and when. Thus, these patterns

reflect the collective history of people who interact, often organizations.

By paying attention to the connections you can see patterns emerge. < br />
people in organizations are thus gives an idea of the patterns that can

then internalize and use as pieces of information for their gestures and

answers.

weather patterns as shown in

Process Enneagram  ©

people interacting through

;

Figure 4 - Make visible the new guidelines

Only â?? internalize "the patterns, if they see these patterns

adequately reflect on their individual experience and intention . In other words

, the subject matter (context) must be compelling enough for individuals wanting

started this way. Thus, the interaction becomes

continuous negotiation of what is and what is not convincing to individuals.

It is a very important skill to act (gestures) so as to

help people see the importance of the emerging issue . If the gesture is

weight, people will respond to it consistently with the leader

intention. Power relations mentioned may distort this view, because people

can not act because the problem is urgent, but because the potential
< br /> consequence of not acting the way he wants is a leader sufficiently convincing.

It is obvious that what people do not internalize the emerging â?? knowledge "

pattern as part of their experience but rather the â?? fear 'by the impact. This

to in turn becomes part of the pattern of organization and organizational therefore

????! Action

Me I think this has significant implications for â??

learning organization. "

The internalization of these emerging patterns as part of interacting processes
< , br /> This is the internalization itself becomes part of the patterns thus potentially

the transformation of identity and intent of the interacting individuals. < , br />
Your individual transformation means that they will act differently than the context

issues than they would otherwise. Eventually suggest that the

individual and collective identity and intent from converge more and more

patterns must be internalized within each individual. Never

be the same, because everyone will still have an individual experience

past and future intention.
;
If the pattern that people who are part of their individual identity and the intention is

whole issue at the action that people take it is important for
in the organization. People have learned to be a coherent action?? Useful.

Applied to this question is the creation of knowledge in the above definition. Thus the

learning process is the process of evolution of new models.

; If, moreover, people internalized â?? fear "standard that the individual

learning will be completely different. There will be little relationship between

the issue and the actions of people and thus, the pattern of knowledge. Slightly

been learned. The evolution is not linked to real life issues, but rather people

avoid other people's actions (the actions of the boss!). Our experience shows

clear that this happens in organizations.

We have already established that the process of organization and knowledge creation

complicitly are linked. â?? . ??