Turtles all the way down and all the way up

At KM Europe 2000 Marcus Speh Birkenkrahe presented a keynote speech on the future of knowledge management in the new economy. The following article concludes the two-part series containing the full text of the presentation.

The holistic complex systems approach to KM

In the second part of this paper we'll look at what 'holistic' really means (1). This requires the introduction of a few theoretical concepts that may be new to some of you. I will then use these to outline a few of the implications of 'holistic' or 'integrative' knowledge management.

In many ways I think knowledge management has suffered the fate of other so-called 'management sciences': It has developed too close to its own practice and therefore has a hard time getting away from itself. This doesn't sound like a bad thing as all business people are wary of theories that have no contact with reality at all. The trick however as so often lies in the right balance between theory and practice.

Keeping this in mind let's take a long step back from practice for a moment. We need to do that if we want to give proper meaning to the term 'holistic'. This word is in danger of becoming over-used whenever a field of knowledge experiences the pressures I have described so far: It has matured enough to have gained some respectability and enough to understand the size of the problems it is facing but not quite enough to integrate these problems and address them with one language.

It is a situation that as I mentioned earlier other larger sciences have encountered and are encountering right now; the problem of integration is the same for physics biology or psychology or the sciences devoted to matter life and the mind. So we're in good company here.

Limitations on space prevent us going into the true origin of this problem though it is a fascinating one and I have to restrict myself to only a sketch of what a solution may look like. Many of the following ideas originate from the work of a modern American philosopher Ken Wilber (2). His work comes closest to describing the integrative approach that I hope knowledge management will adopt from here on out.

For a long time we thought that the problem with integration at the level at which we are talking here came down to the famous 'mind-body' split. It turns out upon inspection that this can be resolved by resolving the 'matter-body' split or the split between the laws that govern the physiosphere (the sphere of matter) and the laws that govern the biosphere (the sphere of life). The problem arises because systems in the physiosphere matter systems seem to only 'wind down' over time in terms of order which is captured in the laws of thermodynamics while in the biosphere living systems seem to 'wind up' over time - for example in biological evolution where amoebas evolve into apes but never the other way around.

Attempts to reconcile these two contradictory observations mark the emergence of a whole set of sciences at the end of the 20th century - new sciences dealing with processes that bridge the gap systems that 'wind themselves up' or 'self-organising' systems. These sciences are collectively known as the sciences of complexity - including General Systems Theory cybernetics non-equilibrium thermodynamics cellular automata theory catastrophe theory autopoietic system theory dynamic systems theory and chaos theories.

To understand the complex system approach we need to introduce a new notion which interestingly transcends one of today's problems in knowledge management - the issue between hierarchies and networks. Which is where 'holistic' comes in.

As used in modern psychology evolutionary theory and systems theory a hierarchy is simply a ranking of orders of events according to their holistic capacity. In any developmental sequence what is whole at one stage becomes a part of a larger whole at the next stage. A letter is part of a whole word which is part of a whole sentence which is part of a whole paragraph and so on. Or in biology any change in an organism will affect all the parts; no aspect of a structure can be altered without affecting the entire structure; each whole contains parts and is itself part of a larger whole.

The social philosopher Arthur Koestler coined the term holon to refer to that which being a whole in one context is simultaneously a part in another. With reference to the phrase 'the bark of a dog' for example the word bark is a whole with reference to its individual letters but a part with reference to the phrase itself. And the whole (or the context) can determine the meaning and function of a part - for example in the different meanings of bark in 'the bark of a dog' and 'the bark of a tree'. The whole in other words is more than the sum of its parts and that whole can influence and determine in many cases the function of its parts.

Normal hierarchy is simply an order of increasing holons representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity - atoms to molecules to cells for example. Or to bring it back to knowledge management individuals to groups to organisations. Hierarchy is central to systems theory which is the theory of holism: To be a part of a larger whole means that the whole supplies a principle (or some sort of glue) not found in the isolated parts alone and this principle allows the parts to join to link together to have something in common to be connected in ways that they could not be on their own. In this sense 'hierarchy is the fundamental structural principle' which is why it is sometimes drawn as a series of concentric circles or spheres or nests within nests.

How do networks come in? Well within a given level of any hierarchical pattern the elements of that level operate by heterarchy. That is no one element seems to be especially more important or more dominant and each contributes more or less equally to the health of the whole level.

But a higher-order whole of which this lower-order whole is a part can exert an overriding influence on each of its components. For example when you decide to move your arm your mind which is a high-order holistic organisation exerts influence over all the cells in your arm which are lower-order wholes but not vice versa: A cell in your arm cannot decide to move the whole arm; the tail does not wag the dog.

So in this language networks operate along both dimensions - within each level of an organisation as heterarchies and between levels of an organisation as hierarchies. Koestler in fact pointed out after noting that all such hierarchies are composed of holons or increasing orders of wholeness that the correct word for 'hierarchy' is actually 'holarchy' or the 'governance structure of holons'.

And knowledge management itself becomes a holistic science if it uses an integrative vision and vocabulary like this to freshly describe its issues questions and answers. The framework is suitable as it is. Let me demonstrate only two fundamental applications of this theory to knowledge management.

Firstly look at the most fundamental holarchy with which I began this whole argument: Reality itself which is made up of three smaller holarchies - the physiosphere which is the holarchy of matter; the biosphere which is the holarchy of living matter; and the noo-sphere which is the holarchy of thinking matter of mind and spirit. In this picture reality itself is not composed of things or processes but of holons - composed that is of wholes that are simultaneously parts of other wholes with no upward or downward limit.

The different spheres or holarchies however do correspond to the basic constituents that we have identified as core to our understanding of knowledge management as well: The physiosphere contains our tangible or hard assets; the biosphere contains people; and the noosphere contains intangible assets: Ideas information relationships (see figure 1). So this is rather neat.

Figure 1 - the hierarchy of holons

Now let us look at what Wilber calls 'pathological' hierarchies and heterarchies. You can already see how holarchies can go pathological. If the higher levels can exert influence over the lower levels they can also overdominate or even repress and alienate the lower levels. Which leads to a host of pathological difficulties in both the individual and the society at large.

This simple thought gives rise to an intervention strategy: To root out any holons that have abused their position in the overall system the arrogant holons but not getting rid of holarchy per se. This is exactly the cure we see at work in psychoanalysis (neurotic holons refuse integration in the whole of the psyche) and in social theory (ideological holons that distort open communication) and in democratic revolutions (monarchical or fascist holons that oppress the political body) and in medical science interventions (cancerous holons invade a benign system). And also in knowledge management: Arrogant holons correspond for example to individuals who abuse their position of knowledge by refusing to share with the rest of the organisation.

Networks or heterarchies as I called them earlier can also become pathological. Heterarchy is holism within any level - it goes pathological when there is a blurring or fusion of that level with its environment; a particular holon doesn't stand out too much it blends in too much it loses itself in others - and all distinctions of value or identity are lost. In knowledge management that's a familiar problem. Namely what is the strategy to motivate people to share what they know if they define their identity and value largely through the knowledge that they alone hold?

In other words in a pathological hierarchy one holon assumes dominance to the detriment of all - it assumes the role of the whole. On the other hand in pathological heterarchy individual holons lose their distinctive value and identity in a communal fusion and meltdown - it assumes it's only a part.

We have really only dipped in the theory of holons which is a framework for any truly holistic theory. Two other interesting directions for investigation include the four fundamental capacities of holons: Self-preservation self-adaptation self-transcendence and self-dissolution.

For the purpose of knowledge management this opens a path to describe the building up adapting transcending and dissolving of knowledge in its agents - remember that organisations teams individuals can all be described as holons.

This theory is very much motivated by finding a consistent developmental perspective. Therefore another interesting application is to look at the stages of knowledge management development. Any cogent or agreed model for these stages in the literature so far is notoriously missing. Complex systems theory offers a solution that distinguishes between different types of holons - individual or communal - and that represents what they look like from the outside versus what they look like from the inside. This simple structure allows one to fold in a wide spectrum of approaches to development and learning ranging from Piaget's theory of the development of the child over Argyris' left- and right-hand column description of the organisational learning process to Habermas' critical social theory.

This scheme which Wilber calls 'The Four Quadrants' (see figure 2) can also be used though to trace the development of a thought from its origin in the individual to its communication and use. All the hierarchies of holons or holarchies sit on the four diagonals of the graph. So there is a correspondence e.g. between the interior experience of 'sensations' (upper left) and simple neuronal organisms (upper right) and likewise around the whole graph (see figure 3). The scheme is suitable for example to describe the management lifecycle of knowledge. It turns out that most of the stuff that's really interesting to KM is in the 'interior' half of the chart which is 'dialogical' - 'right brain' - as opposed to 'monological' - 'left brain' - and so on. In fact the system is reported to have been used to describe the potential future of NASA's space research among other applications in organisational management.

Figure 2 - the Four Quadrants

This may look to you like a re-casting of a process that we think we know very well already. But as I said earlier we hardly understand what is really going on when people create and share or use knowledge. Putting it into the proper context as a complex system helps because it allows us to draw on a myriad of examples from other fields not to mention the possibilities of modelling that come with the whole raft of complex system sciences; and there are other interesting new tools arising from such a perspective including the so-called 'organisational constellations'(3).

Figure 3 - the Four Quadrants in greater detail

KM as a powerful enabler for success in the new economy

Perhaps it is time here to stop and draw a fresh breath. As I said earlier I have not been able to do more than paint a very sketchy picture of the possibilities for a more 'integrative' or 'holistic' knowledge management.

I have got two last thoughts and a joke that I would like to leave you with.

First of all I hope you begin to appreciate the enormous advantage that an integrative and holistic approach like this offers. The particular framework whose foundations I have outlined has the benefit that it is itself built on the notion of 'wholeness'. In the form in which I presented it here this thinking makes a whole lot of approaches that initially appear very different seem not so different and most importantly usable for knowledge management theory and practice. But undoubtedly there are others integrative theories out there. My point is that we must stretch ourselves to find a viewpoint from which we can integrate various approaches or else we will fall short of the potential that knowledge management really holds. To get there will take focus investigation and the will to change.

In fact this is another nice demonstration of the meaning of holons: Applying a sense of integration to knowledge management offers the field of knowledge management as a whole the opportunity to learn. That is understand itself as part of a larger whole and understand its parts.

I'd also like to speculate that at the heart of the challenges I listed earlier there is not just a problem with terminology or methodology or integrative capability of knowledge management but a real split in our world that goes through our organisations. This also brings us back to where we began - the role of KM for the new economy. The split that goes through organisations is very obvious where the so-called 'old' meets the so-called 'new' economy. By now it is becoming clear that we are not in an 'old versus new' situation - the old economy won't just go away and make space for the new economy. In fact they're not as different as they pretend to be - the clue here is once again integration across boundaries.

And the split which goes across industrial demographic and geographical boundaries is perhaps more a fracturedness a hierarchy of splits than one split. If that's so then I would like to see knowledge management act as one of the forces that help organisations heal their 'split'.

Leo Burke head of training at Motorola is quoted in a book by Wilber with the following words that I think are relevant to this thought. He writes: "At a meeting at the Santa Fe institute I posed the questions 'What role do institutions of commerce especially multinational corporations play in the evolution of our species? And what potential if any does business have to support a vision of humanity that integrates spirit mind and body on individual organisational and societal levels?' There were no answers forthcoming but asking the questions in a business context is a small step forward. Yet any exercise of considering such questions is quite limp without the questioners having a fundamental commitment to their own transformation. Ultimately of course this is a commitment not to incremental self-improvement but to genuine self-transcendence."(4)

There is an old joke about a king who goes to a wise person and asks how it is that the Earth doesn't fall down? The wise person replies The Earth is resting on a lion. The king asks: "On what then is the lion resting?" "The lion is resting on an elephant replies the wise person. On what is the elephant resting?" the King asks again. "The elephant is resting on a turtle says the wise person. And before the king can ask again he says You can stop right there your majesty. It's turtles all the way down." Likewise it's holons all the way up and all the way down.

References

1. And clarify the obscure title of the paper!
2. See e.g. Ken Wilber Sex Ecology Spirituality (Shambala Boston & London 2000). A fair amount of the text is quoted freely from this and others of Wilber's recent books on an integrative 'Theory of Everything'.
3 For details see for example the article in http://bertchile.iwarp.com/InterviewChileOrg.htm.
4 Ken Wilber One Taste (Shambala Boston & London 1999).

Marcus Speh Birkenkrahe is knowledge manager at Shell International. He can be contacted at: marcus.m.speh@si.shell.com