Knowledge in local response

I have some thoughts on the knowledge flow for local response. They are just that...thoughts

Here is a copy of Geoff's flow

A way of looking at the flow

I think that we should look at the flow from the perspective of the community. So a community that takes action is the source of the knowledge and the community that is going to take action is the user of the knowledge. They are the start of the flow and they are end of the flow and they are the actors. I've tried to reflect that in what I show below.

A division of the knowledge flows

When I was thinking of the flow, I found it helpful to think of 2 flows.

The first flow is about the community taking action. This flow is simply the Community Life Competence process. In this process, the community is a user of the Knowledge Asset at the start and is a provider to the Knowledge Asset at the end.

The second flow is about the evolution of the Knowledge Asset. This seems to me to be like a sub-routine to the CLCP flow. So the community provide experience and knowledge into the Knowledge Asset and pulls experience and knowledge asset out, but the actual mechanism by which the Knowledge Asset evolves is almost a black box to the community (at least in terms of thinking of it as a system).

So here is how I see the knowledge flow for CLCP:

(I will make this smaller when I have the time.)

and here is the flow for the Knowledge Asset

I think that this division is mainly about helping me to understand the flows better. I think that we can slip the Knowledge Asset flow into the CLCP flow and get a picture similar to Geoff's at the top.

But there is perhaps one distinction of substance. The CLCP flow is driven by the community. The Knowledge Asset flow is driven by a group that is different. It may well be made up of representatives from different communities. But it helps me to distinguish between the two flows.

'Learn-and-share' vs. 'Learning and Sharing'

My diagrams contain one further distinction from Geoff's.

Geoff's flow embodies (I think) the idea that 'we all have something to learn and we all have something to share'. So we have a strength the lessons from which can be used as a resource for others. And we have areas for improvement where we can use the strengths of others as a resource.

Working with CLCP, it has slowly dawned on me that the conversations I hear always surface strengths on both sides. I have come to organise the discussion so that it is based around shared interest, rather than perceived weaknesses or strengths. And this wonderful process, that I like very much, I call learn-and-share (where the hypens are deliberate and create one work for a single idea).

I realise that learn-and-share is not a form that is widely recognised in the Constellation yet, but it seems to me to describe what I see at Knowledge Fairs.

End note

I have had to do this quickly in order to get it out before Thursday's meeting. I hope that it is reasonable clear. I am more than happy to expand on points that people do not find clear.