1. pigmy on February 24, 2004 12:29 AM writes...

there is a fundamental flaw behind the logic of "powerful questions". It assumes that the person being queried is sufficiently aware of their personal decision-making or analytical processes.

you will find that reasons change over time and circumstances.

an example that illustrates this point is how subjects of a hypnotherapy study were left with post-hypnotic suggestions to do something silly like take off their shoe and wear it like a hat upon hearing a trigger word.

When asked why they did the silly thing, every subject invariably came up with a reason despite.

2. JB on March 19, 2004 5:03 PM writes...

I agree with pigmy.

A skilled conm^H^H^H^Hsalesperson drives home a deal, the dup^H^H^Hcustomer rationalizes his/her "decision" to buy.

The stockmarket (et al.). Rampant rationalizing after the fact.

Being able to offer an eloquent argument to the decision/conclusion reached or action taken: Plausible-sounding but false/irrelevant/dumb/... What (I'd call) "meta-connection-soup" do we get? That's right, the omnipresent one.

Knowledge creation "concepts" (tools, practices, logical frameworks, what have you) need to be bullet-proof powerful to be useful. This one is weak and dangerous.

Further proof, should one need it, that this oxymoronic "KM" field is shock-full of smoke and mirrors. And book deals. And seminar gigs. And conference tours with keynote/workshop potential.

Tell me, "How did you reach the conclusion to enter this field? Help me understand your thinking?"

3. Renee on March 19, 2004 5:56 PM writes...

Pigmy, why assume this "powerful question" idea has anything at all to do with logic? If I'm trying to create new ideas, uncover new information, why should I be tied to logic in the idea generation process? I can use logic in an evaluation matrix as I evaluate the ideas generated.

JB, why do knowledge creation concepts have to be "bullet-proof powerful" to be useful? All they have to do is to be helpful in creating knowledge. Some are going to be more helpful than others, some will work for some people and organizations and won't for others.

Folks, we are not talking about marketing research here, about needing to have statistically valid sample and a non-biased interview in order to discover the "truth" -- what we are talking about is trying to uncover the path someone's mind took as they made a connection....and in a lot of ways it doesn't matter whether their description of how they made their connection is Platonic truth or false rationalization. In most cases you will *still* be fostering communication and *still* be making connections, and those connections may (or may not) lead to the creation of new knowledge.

Frankly, I don't buy the notion that because you put forward a theory or a technique or a tool, that you're saying that what you've put forward is the be-all and end-all. That *is* dangerous.

Disclaimer: I'm not actually in the field of knowledge management. I'm in new product development. I was at this conference to get some exposure to what the KM folks are thinking and to see if there was anything there to learn, anything that could be applied to knowledge creation, which to my mind is different than knowledge sharing (though a lot of the KM-ers seem to think it's the same thing).

The point to me is does KM have anything at all to offer in terms of frameworks through which people can both share knowledge and create knowledge? I think the "powerful question" does. The biggest problem I have with it is that it's stupidly obvious as a communication tactic, something smart people do instinctively if they have any interest in trying to further communication as opposed to closing it off. I do think that KM and management consultants who take such relatively common communication skills and "mark" them off as techniques to learn and practice can be a little silly, but I wouldn't call that dangerous.

4. JB on March 20, 2004 10:32 AM writes...

Renee, I'm not that far from this position (and the cheap shots were aimed at Dixon/KM, not you). Re-reading my post, I sounded rather harsh and dismissive - not exactly the best 'atmosphere' for trying out ideas, my apologies.

Communication is indeed a knowledge (or at least 'idea') creator in and of itself. And having a "One Ring Strategy" instead of a toolbox would be reckless. I very much agree that we need flexible, open minds, to have a chance of being innovative.

Furthermore, "weak and dangerous", as I wrote - perhaps a bit too high-contrast. Let me try a modification/clarification:

I was thinking in terms of where such a tool would take you. The "danger" as I see it, comes from the 'big cloud' of reasoning about a concept one tries to understand/improve/etc.; together we would share layers upon layers with rationalizations leading up to our own concepts.

Now, surely some good possibilities for further investigation is bound to emerge. But, the number of possible connections explode - growing exponentially(!)

We could quickly be forced to shift from finding/creating fresh connections/ideas/etc., to desperately trying to keep up with the torrent of explanations, ideas, rationalizations, etc., that are possible to combine with other ones. (Combine with the 'axiom' "90% of everything is crap" ...*shudder* ;) )

In my mind I compared this approach to the usability rule "Don't listen to users, observe them." (Was it Jakob Nielsen, www.useit.com, who coined it, or just popularized it?) I.e. the danger of obscuring and leading one astray (red herrings, wild goose chases), rather than clarifying and highlighting the ways forward.

The tools one chooses, I believe, should be "the simplest ones that could possibly work" (a re-phrasing of a tactic used in XP - eXtreme Programming, www.extremeprogramming.org) - this of course, is in itself such a tool.

Hence, given that we can never have an infinite number of tools with which to help us think/create/test/etc.: favor the robust ("bullet-proof"), simple/effective ("powerful") ones.

Another aspect, I came to think about, was the fact that the powerful question is looking back, trying to explore/validate a concept by understanding how one got there (and in doing this, possibly finding new concepts).

Perhaps this tool could be useful when we're thoroughly *stuck*. (I still don't find the tool very good/strong when charging forward.) But if we can't move forward, retracing our steps might unearth a wrong turn. At that point, thoroughly discussing the reasons for our ideas that took us to the impasse, might save the day.

5. pygmy on July 20, 2004 3:33 AM writes...

hi Renee, actually i never assumed that this "powerful question" idea had anything to do with logic.

"Assume the other person has a reason for their conclusion that makes sense to them, because the knowledge that you want is not their conclusion but the reasoning for their conclusion. So you ask a “powerful question” meant to discover that reasoning."

My point was the proposition to divine the "reasoning" behind a conclusion by asking "powerful questions" assumes the knowledge bearer is conscious of the "reason". This is not always the case unless they have an acute sense of clarity.

Which came first, your feeling of hunger or your noticing it was lunch-time?

cheers!
pygmy