The way I approached a knowledge management project in this blog here presents a dramatic binary: learn or die. It sounds very macho— but it’s also problematically simplistic. Worse, when examined through the lens of the Cynefin-based principles of knowledge management, it quickly unravels. This was a failure that I have learnt from.
Let’s be clear: in complex systems, learning is not a linear process, and knowledge is not obedient. The process I created neglected the nuanced, contextual, and collective realities of how knowledge actually works in an organization and how I missed some key points.
So, let’s walk through the seven principles and expose what’s missing — and what I got flat-out wrong.
1. Knowledge can only be volunteered, it cannot be conscripted
The process described in the blog’s title implies an ultimatum: learn or become extinct. But real knowledge sharing doesn’t happen under threat. It thrives in psychologically safe environments where people offer insight voluntarily.
Snowden nailed it: knowledge cannot be conscripted. The blog, however, waves a megaphone and expects a choir.
Critique: I created a system that was fundamentally missing this point. You can’t scare people into collaboration — at least not sustainably.
2. We only know what we know when we need to know it
The process ignored the contextual emergence of knowledge. Learning isn’t an always-on, abstract act of enlightenment. Often, knowledge is latent — triggered by need or experience.
Although I attempted to use some real-time tools like an approval process it just did not work in the long term. What is needed is something like a daily log to capture knowledge in the moment of relevance.
Critique: The blog treats learning as an isolated discipline, not an emergent behaviour.
3. We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down
The blog doesn’t acknowledge the tacit knowledge problem — the stuff that’s hard to express, impossible to document, but vital for performance. The process was far too structured and started to fail when the structure was removed. There were no rituals, narratives, or social structures to surface that knowledge?
Critique: The process was silent on the social dynamics of knowledge.
4. We only know what we know when someone asks us the right question
Learning requires provocation, reflection, and curiosity. None of which are encouraged by the original blog. The lessons learned step in the day to day work was missed expecting knowledge workers to prioritize documentation over doing.
Effective knowledge cultures ask, “What are we missing?” “Who’s seen this before?” “What did we learn last time?” Without that culture of inquiry, you get knowledge hoarding or, worse — blindness.
Critique: The process offers declaratives when it should be inviting dialogue.
5. To know more, we need to do more
This principle reflects the enactive nature of knowledge — we learn by doing. The blog reduces learning to a cognitive imperative, not a behavioral one.
Learning shouldn’t be optional because it needs to be entwined with delivery.
Critique: Real learning happens through iteration, not introspection. The process forgot that entirely.
6. The way we know is not the way I know
Knowledge is social, situated, and plural. The blog leans hard into individualism — with no recognition of team cognition, shared sense-making, or distributed expertise.
Projects succeed when teams align around a common knowledge base — not when everyone’s off on their own private learning quest.
Critique: The process isn’t about social learning. It’s a sermon for rugged individualists.
7. There is no such thing as knowledge transfer, only knowledge volunteering and knowledge seeking
The process committed the cardinal sin of assuming that learning can be pushed onto people — or that survival pressure will automatically produce insight.
In reality, knowledge transfer doesn’t work that way. You can’t download the experience. You can only create conditions for knowledge flow — curiosity, humility, dialogue, and reflection.
Critique: The process assumes knowledge is a commodity. But in complex systems, it’s a relationship.
Boost Knowledge Management with PDCA Consulting
With 20+ years of experience, PDCA Consulting turns knowledge management into a dynamic, results-driven system:
- Structured Knowledge Flow – ITIL makes knowledge accessible and actionable.
- Lessons Learned Integration – PRINCE2 captures insights at every project stage.
- Continuous Learning Culture – Agile and PDCA foster collaboration and innovation.
- Upskilling Teams – In-person training embeds knowledge practices across your organization.
- Strategic Consulting & Free Guidance – Tailored advice identifies gaps and drives measurable impact.
Outcome: smarter decisions, faster learning, and resilient, collaborative teams.
Conclusion:
The process I created was just that. But in doing so, it bulldozes the very conditions needed for real knowledge work. Fear may wake people up — but it doesn’t make them wise.
If we want resilient organisations, we need learning cultures built not on ultimatums, but on inquiry, emergence, and shared sense-making. Otherwise, the only thing that won’t survive… is our institutional memory.
If you’re serious about knowledge, build ecosystems that foster voluntary, contextual, and lived knowledge. Otherwise, all you’ve got is a formal process that will die quickly — and no capability.
