Hi Rosan and all,

Having been on the move from the Norwegian School of Management in Oslo to
a Visiting Professor position at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia
I have been a spectator to the discussion for some time. As I get back on
the air sitting next to Terry Love, Rosan raises the following question:

What kind of knowledge do we have if we don't have understanding?

The philosopher Susan Langer once said: "To understand a thing we have to
understand it's purpose." There are lots of things we know, have heard
about, and can even use without having any understanding what-so-ever. I
know the fact that the earth revolves around the sun (I am a trusting soul,
and believe the astronomers, and trust the pictures shown of all these
planets running aimlessly around and around). I would be unable to tell
anybody the purpose of the sun, and all other stars and gallaxies. I don,t
even know if they have a purpose.

The above status of my ignorance does not prevent me from knowing that the
sun gives me a tan, a knowledge I exploit to improve my looks (my purpose).
The statement just made implies that I have a correct knowledge of a
socially constructed fact: People - at least those I meet - by and large
think a tanned person to be more attractive, healthy, etc., and I am a
social creature who wants to be attractive (social need driven purpose). If
you asked me how the sun generates the tanning, I would again plead my
ignorance, but that does not prevent me from using my partial knowledge of
a means-goal chain.

Knowledge can be categorized into:

Awareness (of the existence of)
Recognition
Description of (a language is established - the tacit becomes explicit, the
highest level of cognitive knowledge)
Knowledge of function (how it works - technical knowledge)
Knowledge of interaction (it's place and role in a larger context - i.e.
technical systems and cultural knowledge)
etc. up the ladder of knowledge of the nature of - can be a mixture of
tacit and explicit knowledge)
Purpose of (values are introduced, affective dimensions. Can be subjective
(personal morals) and/or objective, i.e. a socially constructed norm/moral)
Non-purpose effects of (negative values as related to original purpose -
personal and/or socially constructed morals)

The second-to-last point implies that the thing (or process) has been
willfully created by somebody to achieve a goal, or the nature and
properties of existing things and processes have been discovered, and can
therefore be harnessed or be used in its natural state to achieve goals. I
do not know who constructed the universe, their purpose of doing so, if
there was a who or a purpose, etc., but my needs directs how I utilize my
knowledge of its nature, and how it can be used to obtain satisfaction of
my needs, lusts, or your needs in a social win-win ploy.

However, the thing may also produce other effects. When I tan I use a sun
lotion and a watch to control the speed to avoid a sunburn. The non-purpose
effects may actually be purposefully used to achieve quite different goals.
If you don't like being a parent and want to inflict pain on your baby,
leave it to roast in the sun - and with luck kill it without being charged
with negligence. As soon as I write something like this most readers will
produce antagonistic feelings, as I move into the realm of good/bad,
permissible/amoral.

It is at the level of fullfilling a purpose that your understanding
develops, making it possible to innovate applications of the thing in a
generative learning fashion for good and bad. If you don't have the
understanding, you cannot willfully and in a planned fashion modify the
thing to better serve old and new purposes with their attached moral
values.

The challenge for designers is that they have to master all the knowledge
levels, and understand the purposes (ethics, morals, values, feelings, etc.
and their will to reach a goal) of people thouched by the modification of
the object, as well as their level of knowledge of the preceding knowledg
levels to ensure they can utilize whatever you end up designing.

Isn't it fun to be in the objects and the people business simultaneously to
generate understanding?

Does this make sense?

Bryn


Brynjulf Tellefsen
Associate Professor
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management - BI
Elias Smiths vei 15
N-1302 Sandvika, NORWAY

Phone office: +47-67557191
Fax office:   +47-67557780
Phone home:   +47-22149697
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

Visiting Professor present-19.12.01:
School of Management Information Systems
Edith Cowan University
Parsons Street, bldg. 16
Churchlands, WA 6018, Australia

Phone office: +61-8-9273-8682
Phone home:   +61-8-9287-1210
Mobile phone: +61-403-907-440
e-mail: [log in to unmask]