Relevant usage of the knowledge can bring the right solution to any kind of situation, but here is the problem. The knowledge is personal. Each one of us has his own knowledge, it cannot be distributed as is. We can transform it to information or even to stories but not to knowledge. One has to understand that we can create knowledge only after we have successfully tried it. Knowledge is a practical resource; it's not created out of simple information. We need a verity of raw materials beside information. We need time and budget, we need this tricky thing we call timing – the right time for the action. We need intrinsic motivation and verity of skills. We need the exact situation that will fit our abilities. We have to manage an effective interaction with those who are relevant to us. So, if we assume that knowledge appears just in it's practical form, we have to understand that we cannot distribute it all around to each other. It's difficult to find the budget, but to find the relevant partner is even more complicate. Not to mention the skills we need to write down, what we have just done, correctly and understandably in order to be able to distribute it.
Out of the above, the conclusion we have to take is that we need to find the owner of the specific knowledge instead of to try to find the knowledge itself. This is the reason why we need to know how to make a knowledge maps.
Knowledge:Timing, relevancy and compatibility
Knowledge is effectively used just if it is available when we really need it. However, timing is not the only measure for effective knowledge. When we face a demand for knowledge it means that we need a solution that is focused on our needs, considers our interests and is compatible to our resources and abilities. Consequently, effective knowledge has to be based on three major measurements in regarding to the clients needs: Timing, relevancy and compatibility.
However, research shows that almost every time knowledge is needed, there are employees who possess it. Managers who realize this try to trace this desired knowledge or at least, try to trace the relevant employee that possesses it. Consequently, the action of tracing knowledge has become one of management's most important operations. Nevertheless, if managers will try to trace knowledge only after they identify the demand, the chances are that they will find it only after it has ceased to be usable. Tracing knowledge is not sufficient, in order to obtain a real benefit out of it, we need to achieve those three measures of effective knowledge: timing, relevancy and compatibly. Therefore, knowledge for its own is not enough we need to find a way to predict the purpose for which the knowledge is needed or at least to know what kind of knowledge we have and where to find it. This will require a study and evaluation of the processes performed daily by the employees.
Knowledge is Process
Knowledge is distinguished by its successful implementation. Not every action or experience done by the employees is distinguished as Knowledge. We know how to do what we have to do only after we have actually succeeded in implementing it. Otherwise, our actions will remain as unsuccessful experiences. Nevertheless, the Successful result is just the first step to knowledge. The sequential actions that lead to the creation of a successful result are part of the knowledge. Without knowing the process which leads to the successful result, we will not be able to actually utilize the knowledge we posses. An expert, who knows how to do his work, knows not only how to create a solution, but is also aware of the sequence of actions, which have to be taken so that he will achieve successful results.
However, not all kinds of knowledge are considered as expertise. Actually, we can identify five levels of knowledge but only the highest level contains knowledge that is considered as expertise and innovation.
The lower level of knowledge, contains personal knowledge that is called "Know-How". This kind of knowledge deals with technical issues as procedures and operating instructions. The Know-How knowledge is easy to be learned, activated, distributed, and stored. Data warehouses of organizations are full of this "Know-How" knowledge. We can find it as operating instructions even in the package of every electrical machine. Operating instructions are considered as "know-how" knowledge, because they are based on an expert's successful experience with a specific device.
The second level contains knowledge that was created at least by two persons. Although each of the creators possess only parts of the total, the dynamic interaction between them is not of less importance. The interaction that had been part of the previous knowledge creation would continue to be a trigger to further effective creation and will expand the usage of this knowledge.
The third level contains "shared" knowledge. This kind of knowledge is created and upgrade by each member of a community. However, it is the most difficult to track and use, because each member contributes just a piece of the total picture of the knowledge. Nevertheless, the combination of the pieces of personal knowledge is important. When the process of sharing insights and suggestions between the participants starts, we can expect to find higher quality of knowledge than in the second level.
The forth level is called "Collaboration." This level defines new approach to the knowledge creation process. In this level, sharing knowledge is no longer the goal. To achieve this higher level, we should consider not just sharing advice and suggestions, but to contribute effective and practicable solutions to a necessary demand. If a manager wants to achieve this level, he would need to switch his concept of management from considering employees as subordinates to collaborating with them as owners of equal knowledge.
Experts possess the fifth and highest level of knowledge. An expert can plans an optimal sequence and flexible process of new and innovative knowledge, which will face the dynamic environment or even change it to the organization benefit



Michael Smith
Invite as author
know how, only after success?
"We know how to do what we have to do only after we have actually succeeded in implementing it. Otherwise, our actions will remain as unsuccessful experiences."
These statements seem to be based on the epistemology of John Dewy and/or Pragmatism, or Instrumentalism in general.
Do you consider yourself the originator of this idea, or are you summarizing a wider subject? If you are summarizing a wider subject, could you provide some references to other authors who speak in terms like "Knowledge is Process?"
Regards,