The value of learning: understanding and measuring the impact of KM in international development

S. Young
{"title":"The value of learning: understanding and measuring the impact of KM in international development","authors":"S. Young","doi":"10.1080/19474199.2012.694263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We need a demonstrable evidentiary basis for understanding what works and what doesn't in international development, and to use that to guide programming decisions; the challenge is that some things are easier to measure than others, and so we tend to focus on the results and impacts that are easy to measure. Neither ‘evidence’ nor ‘results’ are limited to phenomena that are easily measurable, but we tend to lose track of this fact. We let the proxy of our limited definition of evidence stand in for what it was originally supposed to suggest, which is to say results. There is a related error that we often make, which focusing on the proxy of a static plan in place of focusing on actual dynamic implementation contexts and processes. Static plans are easier to develop and implement than dynamic ones, but – just as easily measurable evidence isn't necessarily the most important evidence – easily implemented static plans aren't the most effective ones. We need to develop methods for capturing and assessing and understanding the value we create by investing in learning, and this is what the KM Impact Challenge attempted to do for the field of knowledge management and learning for international development. Relatedly, to be more effective, we need to be more dynamic and adaptable in our strategy, design and implementation – and that in turn requires that we place more emphasis on sharing knowledge and learning about new technical learning, tacit/experiential knowledge, and contextual knowledge – in order that we and our implementing partners learn and adapt for maximum aid effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":169185,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Management for Development Journal","volume":"50 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge Management for Development Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2012.694263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

We need a demonstrable evidentiary basis for understanding what works and what doesn't in international development, and to use that to guide programming decisions; the challenge is that some things are easier to measure than others, and so we tend to focus on the results and impacts that are easy to measure. Neither ‘evidence’ nor ‘results’ are limited to phenomena that are easily measurable, but we tend to lose track of this fact. We let the proxy of our limited definition of evidence stand in for what it was originally supposed to suggest, which is to say results. There is a related error that we often make, which focusing on the proxy of a static plan in place of focusing on actual dynamic implementation contexts and processes. Static plans are easier to develop and implement than dynamic ones, but – just as easily measurable evidence isn't necessarily the most important evidence – easily implemented static plans aren't the most effective ones. We need to develop methods for capturing and assessing and understanding the value we create by investing in learning, and this is what the KM Impact Challenge attempted to do for the field of knowledge management and learning for international development. Relatedly, to be more effective, we need to be more dynamic and adaptable in our strategy, design and implementation – and that in turn requires that we place more emphasis on sharing knowledge and learning about new technical learning, tacit/experiential knowledge, and contextual knowledge – in order that we and our implementing partners learn and adapt for maximum aid effectiveness.
学习的价值:理解和衡量知识管理在国际发展中的影响
我们需要一个可证明的证据基础来理解在国际发展中什么是有效的,什么是无效的,并以此来指导规划决策;挑战在于,有些事情比其他事情更容易衡量,因此我们倾向于关注容易衡量的结果和影响。“证据”和“结果”都不局限于容易测量的现象,但我们往往忽略了这一事实。我们让我们对证据的有限定义的代理代替了它最初应该暗示的东西,也就是结果。我们经常犯一个相关的错误,即关注静态计划的代理,而不是关注实际的动态实现上下文和过程。静态计划比动态计划更容易制定和实施,但是——正如容易衡量的证据不一定是最重要的证据一样——容易实施的静态计划并不是最有效的计划。我们需要制定方法来获取、评估和理解我们通过投资于学习所创造的价值,这正是知识管理影响挑战在知识管理和国际发展学习领域试图做的事情。与此相关的是,为了提高效率,我们需要在战略、设计和实施方面更具活力和适应性——这反过来又要求我们更加强调分享知识和学习新的技术学习、隐性/经验知识和背景知识——以便我们和我们的实施伙伴学习和适应,以实现援助效果的最大化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信