Information versus Knowledge
Scott Jamison wrote a blog entry on Information vs. Knowledge (http://www.scottjamison.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,efcff5e0-d530-4daf-8d59-ae87796602ae.aspx) that I found very interesting. It is a topic that is near and dear to me (and what I do). So, here's my take...
Information is raw. it is historical and represents all things... "We sold 200 widgets yesterday", "I didn't have lunch today", "We need to buy a SQL Server license", "Don't pull on the dog's ear when he is sleeping".
Knowledge is useful. It is useful because it can be re-used by the source or anyone else who has access to it. It is well-defined and represents a subset of all information gathered.
Knowledge Management systems are built to provide access to corporate knowledge (useful data points that will ease the effort of the consumer). Part of the challenge of building a good KM system is to gather the "information" so that you can define the "knowledge". One of the things we do at my company to help clients with this process is to use a process called "filling the Hot Zone"...
The Hot Zone is a place where information is amassed. We tell folks to just throw anything that might be useful into this one place. Don't think; just collect. There may be duplicates and some of it may no longer be relevant. It doesn't matter; we just want to make sure we have everything. This is all the information we have on a topic.
Then, we dissect the Hot Zone. We consolidate then we throw away then we assess. We look for natural groupings and patterns. This begins to form the basis of our knowledge (at least in a structured sense). If it's in our KM system, it must be useful. Simple rule but very powerful. It also leads to natural extensions of this data access... You have a strong search experience on top of your knowledge sources; less so when you point your engine at information (like a network drive).
Make sense?