Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Siddharth Nair

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Where individual people form groups to construct, share and apply knowledge relating to problem situations, Nousala and Hall [25] suggest that they coalesce around a “human attractor” who has a public reputation for interest in that type of problem. People recognize that they share this interest with the attractor and begin to exchange knowledge with her/him, and having been brought together by the attractor, they also begin to network amongst themselves in various knowledge transfer processes, as illustrated in Fig. 4 that shows early stages in the emergence of an autopoietic organization...

Figure 4 Where individual people form groups to construct, share and apply knowledge relating to problem situations, Nousala and Hall [25] suggest that they coalesce around a “human attractor” who has a public reputation for interest in that type of problem. People recognize that they share this interest with the attractor and begin to exchange knowledge with her/him, and having been brought together by the attractor, they also begin to network amongst themselves in various knowledge transfer processes, as illustrated in Fig. 4 that shows early stages in the emergence of an autopoietic organization...

Related Figures (8)

Fig. 1. Boyd’s problem solving Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) Loop. (after [18,60]) Donald Campbell [54,57] coined the term evolutionary epistemology for the understanding he and Popper had that knowledge was something that was cognitively constructed by living entities from their experiences with the world through fallible processes of tria and error learning [58]. Campbell called the process “blind variation and selective retention”, and Popper “conjecture and refutation” [59 or “tentative solutions and error elimination” [49]. In evolutionary epistemology knowledge is constructed via continually iterated cyclical process of cognition resulting in increasingly accurate although always fallible, understandings of reality. Popper’s most detailed exposition what he calls his “general theory of evolution” [49: pp. 241-244]. A more concrete description of the fundamentally cyclic nature of knowledge building in the real world is summarized in John Boyd’s OODA Loop process (Fig. 1) [19,20,22,23,60-,62] that is applicable to both personal and organizational levels of analysis.
Fig. 1. Boyd’s problem solving Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) Loop. (after [18,60]) Donald Campbell [54,57] coined the term evolutionary epistemology for the understanding he and Popper had that knowledge was something that was cognitively constructed by living entities from their experiences with the world through fallible processes of tria and error learning [58]. Campbell called the process “blind variation and selective retention”, and Popper “conjecture and refutation” [59 or “tentative solutions and error elimination” [49]. In evolutionary epistemology knowledge is constructed via continually iterated cyclical process of cognition resulting in increasingly accurate although always fallible, understandings of reality. Popper’s most detailed exposition what he calls his “general theory of evolution” [49: pp. 241-244]. A more concrete description of the fundamentally cyclic nature of knowledge building in the real world is summarized in John Boyd’s OODA Loop process (Fig. 1) [19,20,22,23,60-,62] that is applicable to both personal and organizational levels of analysis.
Fig. 2. Spiral construction of knowledge through time converging on a solution to a problem. See [12,22,23,68]. Problem solving entities (people, organizations) seek to understand the world in ways that will enable them to reach particular “intended future” states, but they exist in an unpredictably changing world, where at any time the situation may diverge to any of many possible “divergent” futures [22,62,67-69]. Without continual vigilance, rational orientation and decision, reflected in appropriate action (i.e., via OODA cycles) to converge on intended futures, stochastic divergence is inevitable. It is here that Simon’s [1] bounds to rationality are of particular concern. For them to be effective, decisions must be made in the entity’s cognitive system close enough to the interface with the problem that processing is informed with enough relevant observational data without being overwhelmed with irrelevant information [22,43,67-69].
Fig. 2. Spiral construction of knowledge through time converging on a solution to a problem. See [12,22,23,68]. Problem solving entities (people, organizations) seek to understand the world in ways that will enable them to reach particular “intended future” states, but they exist in an unpredictably changing world, where at any time the situation may diverge to any of many possible “divergent” futures [22,62,67-69]. Without continual vigilance, rational orientation and decision, reflected in appropriate action (i.e., via OODA cycles) to converge on intended futures, stochastic divergence is inevitable. It is here that Simon’s [1] bounds to rationality are of particular concern. For them to be effective, decisions must be made in the entity’s cognitive system close enough to the interface with the problem that processing is informed with enough relevant observational data without being overwhelmed with irrelevant information [22,43,67-69].
Fig. 3. Action groups in the hierarchical structure (after 21, 37) Structural, dispositional and subjective knowledge, together with the cybernetic (cognitive) processes for building, maintaining and acting on this knowledge are encompassed within world 2. Popper [49] places articulated (but not codified) speech in world 3 together with all kinds of persistently codified knowledge. We (following Hall [71] and Ong [78]) place speech in world 2 because sound vanishes from the physical world in an instant and its content persists only through its impact on cognitive processes of living people (world 2).
Fig. 3. Action groups in the hierarchical structure (after 21, 37) Structural, dispositional and subjective knowledge, together with the cybernetic (cognitive) processes for building, maintaining and acting on this knowledge are encompassed within world 2. Popper [49] places articulated (but not codified) speech in world 3 together with all kinds of persistently codified knowledge. We (following Hall [71] and Ong [78]) place speech in world 2 because sound vanishes from the physical world in an instant and its content persists only through its impact on cognitive processes of living people (world 2).
Fig. 5. Building organizational knowledge [after 12]. Fig. 5 combines the concepts introduced in the previous four figures to illustrate the virtuous knowledge building spiral of an emergent organization responding to environmental imperatives and_ its internal goals. Each OODA cycle responds to fresh observations where the organizational understanding is analyzed and criticized vie orientation processes and tested via selective decisions and actions in the world. On balance, the organization’s understanding of the world should be improved with each turn of the spiral.
Fig. 5. Building organizational knowledge [after 12]. Fig. 5 combines the concepts introduced in the previous four figures to illustrate the virtuous knowledge building spiral of an emergent organization responding to environmental imperatives and_ its internal goals. Each OODA cycle responds to fresh observations where the organizational understanding is analyzed and criticized vie orientation processes and tested via selective decisions and actions in the world. On balance, the organization’s understanding of the world should be improved with each turn of the spiral.
Fig. 6. A mature community (after 25). Fig. 6 illustrates this in a fully formed knowledge-based group, where the practices to form and maintain the community have beer objectified as structural procedures (indicated by the records icons). Grey faces: those using codified knowledge (‘a’) about how to manage internal and external monitoring processes providing overall feedback control. White faces: those using codified knowledge (‘b’ about processes for producing and exporting knowledge to the external world. Black faces: those using codified knowledge (‘c’) about the product quality control cycle. (‘d’) codified knowledge about induction process recruiting new individuals into the community to satisfy new needs and to replace attrition. For the community to persist beyond the memberships of particular people, new members need to be recruited and “inducted” into the group to replace those leaving. In this context involves inductees adopt the group’s interests and aims, accept affiliation, and learn to carry oul tasks contributing to the group’s overall survival and success. (‘e’ codified knowledge about environmental monitoring processes. (‘f codified and structural knowledge about how to establish and sustain the community itself.
Fig. 6. A mature community (after 25). Fig. 6 illustrates this in a fully formed knowledge-based group, where the practices to form and maintain the community have beer objectified as structural procedures (indicated by the records icons). Grey faces: those using codified knowledge (‘a’) about how to manage internal and external monitoring processes providing overall feedback control. White faces: those using codified knowledge (‘b’ about processes for producing and exporting knowledge to the external world. Black faces: those using codified knowledge (‘c’) about the product quality control cycle. (‘d’) codified knowledge about induction process recruiting new individuals into the community to satisfy new needs and to replace attrition. For the community to persist beyond the memberships of particular people, new members need to be recruited and “inducted” into the group to replace those leaving. In this context involves inductees adopt the group’s interests and aims, accept affiliation, and learn to carry oul tasks contributing to the group’s overall survival and success. (‘e’ codified knowledge about environmental monitoring processes. (‘f codified and structural knowledge about how to establish and sustain the community itself.
Fig. 7. Putting community knowledge into its hierarchical context (from [7]).
Fig. 7. Putting community knowledge into its hierarchical context (from [7]).
Fig. 8. Test 1: wiki site constructed for a particular group project 4.1 Initial usability testing in a community action scenario
Fig. 8. Test 1: wiki site constructed for a particular group project 4.1 Initial usability testing in a community action scenario
Related topics:
EngineeringOrganizational TheoryKnowledge ManagementSociotechnical SystemsEvolutionary EpistemologyKnowledge building cycle
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved