I = 0

(Information has no intrinsic meaning)

by

F J Miller BEng BEdSt FIEAust

BHP Engineering

PO Box 425, Brisbane, Australia 4004
mailto:fmiller@bigpond.net.au

Abstract

This paper was written to help identify some contradictions which can be found in the notion of knowledge management. The author suggests that knowledge – that is to say “what we know” – can scarcely be understood and managed even by ourselves, much less by means of sophisticated information and communications (ie groupware and shareware) technologies. We’ve progressed from the industrial age through the information age into what is being promoted as the ‘golden age’ of knowledge and, in the process, we’ve been led to believe that information contains meaning – rather than just standing for, provoking or evoking meaning in others. The paper argues that unless we take the trouble to face and understand the significance and implications of I = 0 (ie that information has no intrinsic meaning) and that knowledge is the uniquely human capability of making meaning from information – ideally in relationships with other human beings, we may never emerge into any ‘golden’ age at all! The consequences of I = 0 for communications, learning, safety, quality, management (itself), and winning work are discussed and some observations are made about business process re-engineering and downsizing.

Introduction – What’s the problem?

We are increasingly being bombarded by information about something called “knowledge management”, the topic of possibly greatest management fascination in the late 1990’s. Most articles available on this subject (though, thankfully, not all) tacitly promote the notion that knowledge and information are effectively interchangeable. We are being told that we can ‘database’ and ‘capture’ knowledge ... that information, in effect, contains meaning. But does it? And is this an issue worth worrying about? Let’s assume for the moment that it is, and explore why.

In a recent research study into attributes of “knowledge management” by Davies and McDermott, we are told that a number of “lessons were learnt”. Here are some of them:

· “All companies studied have common categories, terms and document attributes so they can easily find any knowledge element”

· “Several companies have integrated knowledge capture and sharing into the natural flow of the user’s work”

· “Most companies have a system for organising and disseminating explicit knowledge”.

Extending this theme (ie that knowledge can be captured, made explicit, documented organised, disseminated etc ... in effect, managed), a recent HBR article proclaims:

· “Invest heavily in IT; the goal is to connect people with reusable codified knowledge”

· “The reuse of knowledge saves work, reduces communications costs, and allows a company to take in more projects”.

· “Because knowledge is a core asset of consultancies, they were among the first businesses to pay attention to – and make heavy investments in – the management of knowledge. They were also among the first to aggressively explore the use of information technology to capture and disseminate knowledge”.

On the surface, such observations sound quite reasonable. But are they?

Messages and meaning – what’s the key distinction?

Most of us naturally assume that everything we say and do, every piece of information – in effect every message we send and receive ... everything we read and write – has meaning. We’ve all said at some time: “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times” ... believing that what we “told them” contained meaning. Why else would we have bothered? Why would we make the effort to exchange information with each other – socially, or in business – if we thought that the effort might not constitute exchange of meaning? We generally assume that, when we communicate, our meaning can be understood by others so long as we make the effort to craft our messages carefully. We conscientiously attend meetings and are party to an endless stream of emails, faxes, memos and so on, both to – and from – just about everywhere on the planet ... yet we are frustrated by the many unexpected and often unsatisfactory outcomes. People, somehow, always manage to misconstrue our meanings. We sometimes think: “Wasn’t what we communicated clear enough?” “Can’t people understand plain English”?

“I know you believe you understand
what you think I said –
but
I’m not sure you realise that what you heard
is not what I meant!”

(Ashleigh Brilliant)

We spend untold amounts of money on management education and ‘training’ yet we are sometimes dispirited by the apparently contrary behaviour of people and the difficulty organisations so often experience in their efforts to achieve alignment to business purpose, industrial harmony and sustainable business performance. Projects often over-run time and budget and we frequently attribute these outcomes to problems with information quantity and quality. We rarely stop to consider whether our view of information itself is at the root of the problem.

As we approach the new millennium, we must wonder whether there may be some basic underpinning principle, some seriously fundamental concept, which we may not yet have fully grasped despite the advances in the sciences and humanities which have provided such great improvements in quality of life for so many people on earth. Is it possible that we are on the verge of another breakthrough in our understanding of universal laws as the twentieth century draws to a close?

Is it possible that the “Information Age” has actually undermined human progress?

It’s generally acknowledged that we’ve been living in the ‘information age’ since the middle of the twentieth century. Before this, the world lived through the “industrial age” during which ‘production’, for the most part, was the consequence of manual labour – augmented to an increasing extent by evolving technology – directed and controlled by people responsible for the productivity of machines.

During the “industrial age”, it was our personal relationships with others that gave our lives meaning. Most of the experience we gained in those days was tangible and immediate – and communication was largely face-to-face or paper-based. Our circle of family, friends and acquaintances was generally small, constrained by the primitive state of communications technology existing at the time and of the tyranny of distance. Interpretation of events was able to be tested by direct perception and immediate awareness by our senses of what was going on around us. Our knowledge – that is to say what we knew from our direct experiences – was closely akin to the knowledge of others with whom we necessarily lived our lives in close proximity.

The “information age” changed all that. Through technological innovation and breakthroughs in science, it became possible to deliver information (ie messages) accurately – and in an instant – to others, wherever they live on the face of the globe, whether we have any life experience in common with each another or not. And therein lies the essence of our problem and the cause of so many of our quite tragic human and organisational dilemmas.

We can send information and provoke almost anyone we wish anywhere on the planet, but we can never be sure – unless we know these people personally – how they are likely to interpret (ie what meaning they are likely to make of) the information they receive from us. And even if we did know others very well indeed, we still could never be certain how their mood at the time might influence the interpretation they make of the information they receive. But there’s an even deeper issue lurking here ...

Karl-Erik Sveiby in his recent book The New Organisational Wealth has this to say about information ...

... we should turn our concept of information on its head and acknowledge the following radical notion: information is meaningless and of low value. Currently, however, governments and many businesses alike act as if information is meaningful and has a high value. ... Yet the value does not lie in the information stored but in the knowledge created [from it].

Information, it turns out, is simply the vehicle by which we attempt to provoke – or evoke – a human response. Information on its own is quite static and lifeless. It simply exists – on multimedia computer screens, in text books, magazines, movies, TV, CDs, reports, letters, emails, faxes, memos and so on – all waiting to be interpreted, all waiting to have meaning attached – by people. As Hugh Mackay explains in his book The Good Listener, although information certainly stands for meaning, it is never meaning itself. Meaning is a mental thing and is only ever tacit, that is to say, ‘in us’. Identical information almost invariably provokes (or evokes) different meanings in each of us. We shouldn’t be surprised by this. Rarely do two people (even identical twins) attach the same meaning to experiences – even when the experiences appear on the surface to be identical – like reading the same newspaper article, watching the same movie, attending the same political rally or participating in the same meeting. Identical information always provokes different meanings in us because our interests, motivation, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, sense of relevance etc are always personal and changing – almost minute by minute.

What then is the basic difference between information and knowledge?

The following chart suggests how information and knowledge are distinguished:

Information	Knowledge
Static	Dynamic
Independent of the individual	Dependent on individuals
Explicit	Tacit
Digital	Analogue
Easy to Duplicate	Must be re-created
Easy to broadcast	Face-to-face mainly
No intrinsic meaning	Meaning has to be personally assigned

Knowledge is, after all, what we know. And what we know can’t be commodified. Perhaps if we didn’t have the word “knowledge” and were constrained to say “what I know”, the notion of “knowledge capture” would be seen for what it is – nonsense!

The more we consider these issues, the more we are driven to the unpalatable and counter-intuitive conclusion that information is intrinsically meaningless on its own and remains so unless – and until – it is interpreted by human beings, within some context. “I = 0” is perhaps an elegant way of expressing this essential truth.

If I = 0, then what role does information play?

Why do we attach so much importance to information? Because without information we would not have ‘triggers’ to alert us to the need to interpret events (assuming we think the events are relevant enough to bother interpreting). Information provides us with an opportunity to make meaning of sensory input. Without information, there is nothing to provoke us to ‘sit up and take notice’. This is its primary value. Of course, information provokes different people in different ways, and this is also a critical issue. The simple fact is that without information, our senses are devoid of stimulation. And without information, we can have no way of being certain we even exist. (Experiments with total sensory deprivation produce symptoms of madness.)

For this reason, information is critically important in the lives of people. But if we then take the step of ascribing intrinsic meaning to information, we cross the boundary of rationality and enter a bizarre world where we assume that a stimulus has a mind of its own and can have its own meaning!

(The only time information could be said to ‘imply meaning’ is when the meaning provoked – or evoked – is predictable, as might be the case in the transmission of scientific information. But, as we know, even mathematical proofs are subject to interpretation.)

When then does information become knowledge? The answer: at the moment of its human interpretation (and not an instant before!)

The famed clinical psychotherapist Milton Erickson makes this point:

“Unless abstract symbols are mediated through personal experience they have no meaning”.

Myers and Myers in The Dynamics of Human Communication state:

“... words don’t have meanings. There is no direct relationship between the thing you are talking about and the words you use. Only as these words are related through the thoughts of a person do they have meaning. Meaning is not in the object or in the symbol but in the interaction of these through the human [communication process]”.

Hugh Mackay in his book The Good Listener suggests that:

“It’s not what our message does to the listener – but what the listener does with our message [that determines our success in communication]”.

“It’s not the meaning we put into the message but the meaning the audience puts into the message that matters”.

Why then do we persist in the assumption that messages contain intrinsic meaning when the literature abounds with evidence to the effect that information possesses no intrinsic meaning, and that in fact I always = 0.

Can we ever manage knowledge?

To answer this question, we have to ask ourselves whether we can ever manage ‘what people know’.

Verna Allee, author of The Knowledge Evolution, puts it this way:

“There is no way I could possibly catalog even my own personal knowledge. What makes us think we can somehow catalog or map all the knowledge that resides in a complex enterprise of hundreds or thousands of people? What on earth do we think we can accomplish by ‘managing’ knowledge?”

Nonaka and Takeuchi, famed authors of The Knowledge-Creating Company, also make the point:

“ ... information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created by that very flow of information anchored in the beliefs and commitment of its holder. This ... emphasises that knowledge is essentially related to human action”.

Thus the notion that we can ‘capture’ knowledge becomes ludicrous, just as ludicrous as the notion that we can ‘capture people’s thoughts’. In fact, it is a useful test when attempting to understand the notion of ‘knowledge’ to exchange it for a moment with the word ‘people’, and consider whether the sentence still makes sense. If it doesn’t, a more appropriate word would probably have been ‘information’!

Michael Polanyi, a pre-eminent thinker and author in this field (ref. The Tacit Dimension and others), has been widely misinterpreted (in this author’s opinion) by more recent writers who have suggested that Polanyi viewed knowledge as – in one sense tacit – and in another sense explicit. This was not his view. For Polanyi, knowledge was only ever tacit. Once we attempt to make knowledge (ie what we ‘know’) explicit, it reverts immediately to an ‘information’ state again and requires human intervention anew for sense to be made of it. This is slippery business. Is it conceivable that the tacit/explicit confusion can be traced to the very existence of the term ‘knowledge’?

What’s wrong with the term “knowledge”?

Language (unfortunately) makes it possible to treat as ‘objective’ (ie explicit) what is only ever ‘subjective’ (ie tacit). For example

· “how I feel” (tacit) can become “feeling” (explicit)

· “being safe” (tacit) can become “safety” (explicit)

· “what I learn” (tacit) can become “education” or “training” (explicit)

· “how I relate to you” (tacit) can become a “relationship” (explicit)

· “what I know” (tacit) can become “knowledge” (explicit)

… and so on.

Language – and in particular its ‘noun’ form – enables us to distance ourselves from our thoughts, feelings and experience and to ‘objectify’ them. This is a serious issue because, by ostensibly transforming the personal into the impersonal, we tacitly accept the legitimacy of capture, packaging and storage, implying that our thoughts, feelings and experience can be unpacked – just as they were – at another time. The act of ‘objectifying’ stops time ... dead in its tracks ... transforming live experience simply into patterns of data and symbols – ie into ‘information’. And though ‘information’ can, of course, be captured, stored, accessed and processed, the human experience underpinning it – and making sense of it – cannot.

Some implications of I = 0 for dictionaries

We assume that words have intrinsic meaning and that dictionaries are the repositories of those meanings. “If you want to know the meaning of a word, look it up in the dictionary” we are told. Yet, dictionaries are not repositories of meaning at all, but simply history books of word usage (Hayakawa). Language is simply the explicit vehicle by which we transform meanings (in us) into symbols (eg words) which then provoke (or evoke) meanings in others. Although the words we use stand for meaning, we should not assume that those words necessarily provoke the same meaning in others. In fact, more often than not, they provoke quite different meanings. The rule is: words don’t possess intrinsic meaning, they simply serve to initiate the making of meaning. Stated another way, I = 0. For this reason, we must be wary of dictionaries. They can never – and were never designed to – resolve an argument about meanings.

Some implications of I = 0 for communications

Most would agree that almost nothing is more important than effective and efficient communications. Yet how many of us think that we communicate well? Is it possible that something very basic is lacking in our understanding of communication despite the books we’ve read, the courses we’ve attended, or the consultants we’ve engaged? Maybe we simply don’t communicate enough? Or is it that we communicate too much. Or is it something entirely different ….?

We need to remind ourselves that the word ‘communicate’ is a verb, and as with all verbs, can be performed unilaterally, as in: ‘I communicate’, ‘you communicate’, ‘he/she communicates’ etc. But, we must ask ourselves, is ‘communicating’ something that can be done by individuals in isolation? Interestingly, the verb ‘communicate’ provokes/evokes different meanings in people. Some examples of ‘communications’ language are:

transmit, pass on, report, get through, tell, convey, deliver, contact, inform, broadcast, speak, announce, relate, send, share, commune, exchange, swap, connect, understand, dialogue, listen, converse, explore etc.

Where is the meaning here? Certainly not in the words themselves! The tragedy of the entire notion of communications is that so many of us believe that by delivering messages (ie information) we are thereby delivering meaning. The reality is, however, that information contains no intrinsic meaning ie I = 0. Successful communications depends on knowing others well enough or caring about others deeply enough (the tacit dimension) to imagine how they are likely to interpret the (explicit) messages we exchange with them. Small wonder emails – and the many other forms of explicit information – have the potential to create such havoc in human relationships.

Some implications of I = 0 for training and learning

How many people stop to consider what the difference is between training and learning? Most of us probably take for granted that they are two sides of the same coin, though the one (training) is explicit (ie information delivery) and the other (learning) is tacit (ie the making of personal meaning).

Experiments recently conducted (by BHPE) attempted to understand the meanings people attach to certain key words in the workplace. When the word training was thrown into the ring, surprisingly, it typically evoked negative reactions. Words like teaching, classrooms, schedules, assessment, authority, competency measurement, control, accreditation, dependency, tests, discipline, boredom, manipulation etc covered the white board.

Learning, on the other hand, generated a quite different and more positive list, evoking such responses as: self-direction, understanding, enthusiasm, self-pacing, independence, open discussion, success, commitment, freedom, ease of access, excitement, maturity, honesty etc. Despite these very different perceptions and responses, why do we still continue to use the language of training and learning virtually synonymously? Is it because we do not appreciate that I = 0 and that people will invariably interpret language in their idiosyncratically personal contexts?

Some implications of I = 0 for safety

Safety is clearly the concern of everyone. Yet how likely is it we would agree what safety is? When a few people were asked what they thought it was, there were many responses:

LTI’s, policy, procedures, reports, threat, blame, protection, vigilance, precaution, shelter, training, passports, statistics, policing, covering up, hazards, life, caring, sharing, shielding, uncertainty, consequences, threat … and so on.

This provides clear evidence, once again, that it isn’t what the message does to the audience but what the audience does with the message that really matters. From the list above, it would be difficult to find a single thought about the notion of safety that everyone shares. Is it conceivable that the noun ‘safety’ (the commodity) might not, in fact, be the best language to inspire people to behave safely? In light of I = 0 mightn’t the language of ‘safely’ evoke more powerful human (ie tacit) responses and hence serve to encourage more responsible and safer workplace behaviour?

Some implications of I = 0 for management (and relationships)

Most of us accept that management is legitimate when applied to inanimate processes and the manipulation of information. But the notion of ‘management’ falls rather flat when applied to people – except as they are encouraged and supported to manage themselves – responsibly and appropriately – within a mutually understood context and in support of an agreed purpose. Some managers would appear to believe that desired behaviour can reasonably result simply from the provision of relevant and timely information delivered under appropriate authority. But because they are unaware that I = 0, they may not appreciate that leadership is more likely to provoke or evoke the meanings – and the responses – hoped for than delivery of information is ever likely to achieve on its own.

In order for a message to evoke a desired response, it should by now be increasingly clear that it isn’t the message that needs managing (I = 0) so much as the response. Desirable responses, however, are only able to be evoked through the existence of secure and mutually respectful relationships between people.

Some implications of I = 0 for quality initiatives

For years now, many organisations have taken ‘quality’ to mean compliance with documented processes intended to achieve ‘fitness for purpose’. However, the very act of documentation transforms ideas – which can originate only in the minds of people (tacitly) – into databases of information which, if inappropriately interpreted, can result in unwanted outcomes indeed. Sadly, we seem not to have appreciated that attempts to ‘capture’ (ie make explicit) human intentions serves only to transform them into intrinsically meaningless symbols even if made efficiently accessible from procedure manuals, computer databases, intranets and other sophisticated information sources. Captured information always relies on responsible people (ie of quality) interpreting it within a context – and sharing and comparing interpretations where alignment to business purpose is a desired outcome. Information cannot interpret itself! I = 0.

Some implications of I = 0 for bidding on jobs

We traditionally assume – when we receive requests to bid on jobs – that bid documentation provided has intrinsic meaning and reflects accurately the intentions of the customer. In effect, we assume that the ‘message contains the meaning’ and that we can decode intentions accurately, if we work hard enough at it! But I = 0, and as a result, we can but make our own meaning of information received. We then attempt to construct a reply which – while standing for our meaning – cannot itself ‘contain’ our meaning. The bid response must somehow then invoke an appropriate meaning in the mind of the customer, which invariably occurs in yet another context. Thus the ‘meaning’ chain linking the thoughts of documentation authors, the interpretations of bidders and the final recipients of bids is severed completely many times in the process.

Can anything be done to retrieve the situation? Yes, but only if a relationship is established between the parties involved which is sufficiently trusting to enable them to share and compare the various interpretations of their messages when sending and receiving information. If the bidding process does not allow such sharing and comparison to take place, the prospect for desired outcomes is severely hampered. The reason should be clear: I = 0. (See Fig 1)

Figure 1

What about business process re-engineering (BPR)?

Many organisations have attempted to improve their business performance through the introduction of information processing efficiencies and ‘down-sizing’ but omitted to ‘factor-in’ the necessity for intelligent interpretation and transformation of that information (ie the people dimension). Sadly, the capability to construct meaning from information (ie the act of transforming information into relevant and useful knowledge) has been virtually omitted from the literature and practice of BPR. It is not too late, however to rescue BPR from the ‘graveyard of dead ideas’ (Sveiby) but it will require that I = 0 be understood in depth and its consequences acted upon.

Where does this leave the notion of Knowledge Management (KM)?

This is a vexed issue. KM is, sadly, deeply embedded in most modern literature connected with the productivity of intangible assets. Yet this paper tries to make clear that when subjected to critical analysis, KM is an untenable notion. Knowledge (ie what people know) simply cannot be captured or managed, and hence the term Knowledge Management is inappropriate. Worse still, the language of KM suggests that knowledge is a commodity capable also of being processed, delivered, transmitted etc when it is not. Whilst knowledge sharing is an acceptable concept, the notion of knowledge management is, at best, dubious!

Conclusion

As explained in this paper, information – though it serves a fundamental and vital role as a provoker and evoker of meaning in people – possesses no intrinsic meaning of its own. This has enormous practical implications for people, safety, communications, knowledge sharing, relationships, training and learning, quality, business processes, customer service and so on. The statement “I = 0” is designed to remind us of an essential truth ... and to help us resist the pressure of information technology (and of its well-meaning protagonists) to undermine the value and significance of ‘knowledge’ as a human concept. Knowledge (ie ‘what we know’) is only ever ‘tacit’ and can never be ‘explicit’. It must never be thought of as a commodity to be captured, processed, stored, transmitted, managed etc. Only human beings can intelligently make sense of – and provide an appropriate context for – information. Only human beings have the capacity to construct meaning from information and to sense ‘meaning’ evolving in themselves and in others. Only human beings can compare interpretations with a view to achieving a shared purpose. Information, no matter how elegantly processed and presented, is incapable – on its own – of achieving anything! The irony of all this, of course, is that this paper likewise contains no intrinsic meaning. Whatever meanings are ascribed to it are simply the interpretations and judgements made of it by its readers.

Lastly, the language of “knowledge management” serves only to confuse. It seriously diminishes the prospect that intangible assets (people) will be recognised within business and industry an the sine qua non of all value, growth, innovation, development and prosperity. KM serves people up on the altar of technology. If we lose sight – even for a moment – of the message that I = 0, humanity could well be subsumed entirely within technology in the years ahead to its unfathomable cost.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the great debt owed to Hugh Mackay and to Dr Karl-Erik Sveiby for so many of the ideas contained in this paper and for inspiration to call the paper I = 0. Special thanks go to colleagues Ross Parslow, David Overall, Lee Davis, Ian King, Richard Blayden, Richard Morgan, Kevin Fletcher, Stephen Ross, Christine Williams, Brenda Nielsen and to the many other kind people in BHP – as well as friends met at conferences – who were prepared to indulge the author’s passion for exploration of ideas until, together, they came to a deeper understanding of the issues under consideration.

References

Hugh Mackay The Good Listener; Pan Macmillan, Australia, 1998 (originally published as Why Don’t People Listen?)

Karl-Erik Sveiby The New Organisational Wealth: Managing and Monitoring Knowledge-Based Assets; Barrett-Kohler,
San Francisco, 1997

S I Hayakawa Language in Thought and Action; Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., USA, 1964

I Nonaka & H Takeuchi The Knowledge-Creating Company; Oxford University Press, NY USA, 1995

H Davies & Knowledge Management: Summary of Lessons Learned

R McDermott from Other Organisations; Using IT to Support Knowledge Management, Final Report, APQC, 1997

GE and MT Myers The Dynamics of Human Communications; McGraw Hill, USA 1988

M T Hansen, N Nohria What’s Your Strategy For Managing Knowledge?; HBR,

& T Tierney Mar-Apr 1999

S R Lankton, S Gilligan Views on Ericksonian Brief Therapy, Process and Action;

& J K Zeig Ericksonian Monographs, No 8, Brunner/Mazel, NY USA

Other Related Reading

A Brand Knowledge Management and Innovation at 3M; Journal of Knowledge Management Vol 2, No 1, Sept 1998

F J Miller BNA* – Getting Back to Business Basics; Informal paper, BHPE, Brisbane 1999

F J Miller Why Don’t People Learn: The Message and the Meaning for Learning Organisations; Informal paper, BHPE, Brisbane 1998

H Eisenberg Reengineering and Dumbsizing: Mismanagement of the Knowledge Resource; IEEE Engineering Management Review, Fall 1998

J Kirby Downsizing Gets the Push; Business Review Weekly, (Australia), Mar 22, 1999

T Goss, R Pascale & Risking the Present for a Powerful Future; Harvard Business

A Athos Review, Nov-Dec 1993

L Fahey, The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management;

L Prusak California Management Review, Vol 40 No 3, Spring 1998