Consider two tennis players. Each is the embodiment of specific knowledge. What each player knows is unique. Each wants to share knowledge with each other. So, the match begins.
The ball represents information. The racket is the interface used to share or direct information. The court represents the knowledge management system. Player 1 serves the ball. The information is now in play. It is being communicated.
Communication involved “spin.” How a player serves or returns information is a function of speed, location and spin. All three determine how it the receiver will deal with it and respond.
Player 2 manages the communication by analyzing its value, filtering its “spin” and determining to deal with it.
Information management is a personal activity. It determines whether inbound communications deliver information of value. The receiver then determines how to use that information to convert it into knowledge.
Knowledge is not transferable. Information is, in the form of communication. Shared knowledge is not possible. We each develop knowledge through individual processes of accepting information and interpreting, analyzing, testing, storing, concluding, or whatever else we do with it to assess its use to increase our knowledge or confuse us.
Anyone for doubles? Two players represent a relationship. Beyond that, you are dealing with a culture. But, the mechanics remain the same. Communication is essential to transferring information. Verbal and visual information contribute to the transfer. What is the other player’s location – net, baseline, mid-court? What is the other player’s physical condition – fresh, tired, injured, overpowering? These are the transfer formats where social media adds value or texture to information and increases the likelihood that information contributes to the knowledge of others.