In We addressed educational issues such as the scholastic approach to learning and briefly discussed the flawed practice of training. skills at the expense of gaining knowledge. Now it's time to discuss these two fundamental categories in more detail and understand the essential difference between them.
So, both definitions: skills and knowledge, as well as the less commonly used term rules, as used by specialists in personnel and HR, were formulated nearly 40 years ago in a work titled: “Skills, Rules and Knowledge; Signals, Signs and Symbols, and Other Distinctions in Human Performance Models.” Since then, the framework he developed has significantly evolved, but we will rely on the original article, which can be found . The document is available for a fee or through corporate/academic subscription, but the poor yet curious reader will always find a way to download the text for free.
Interestingly, due to the fact that while the term rules often falls out of sight, and skills and knowledge continue to coexist, a misleading impression often arises that the latter two are synonymous. Meanwhile, in Rasmussen's taxonomy, all of them are given quite clear definitions, and be assured, they should not be confused in any way.
Specifically, in studying human behavior, Rasmussen assigns skills the lowest and not-so-flattering tier. With remarkable attributes such as the automaticity of sensory-motor activity in the absence of conscious control, it is very close to developed complex conditional reflexes:
The skill-based behavior represents sensory-motor performance during acts or activities which, following a statement of an intention, take place without conscious control as smooth, automated, and highly integrated patterns of behavior.
Rasmussen places the level of rules above skills, although he notes that the line between them can be quite thin, especially when skills are combined in chains. Their necessity arises when a single skill is insufficient in a particular situation, requiring the grouping of several abilities and performing actions based on conditions, i.e., following rules developed independently or acquired from someone else:
At the next level of rule-based behavior, the composition of such a sequence of subroutines in a familiar work situation is typically controlled by a stored rule or procedure which may have been derived empirically during previous occasions, communicated from other persons’ know-how as instruction or a cookbook recipe, or it may be prepared on occasion by conscious problem solving and planning.
This list can confidently include various technical best practices, white papers, and other how-tos, as well as established corporate management rules, including those procedures introduced by the local team lead.
At the top of this pyramid are the knowledge gained at the moment when the usual worldview collapses – neither skills nor adherence to instructions help, but the necessity arises to investigate and study an unfamiliar problem in an unusual setting:
During unfamiliar situations, faced with an environment for which no know-how or control rules are available from previous encounters, the control of performance must move to a higher conceptual level, in which performance is goal-controlled and knowledge-based. In this situation, the goal is explicitly formulated, based on an analysis of the environment and the overall aims of the person. Then a useful plan is developed by selection, such that different plans are considered, and their effect tested against the goal, physically by trial and error, or conceptually by means of understanding the functional properties of the environment and predicting the effects of the plan considered. At this level of functional reasoning, the internal structure of the system is explicitly represented by a "mental model"…
It is precisely at this level that the most interesting things happen – business ideas, scientific theories, and innovations emerge, as well as rules and methodologies formulated for the lower levels, such as the development of the Agile manifesto.
In conclusion, one must take the unpleasant pill number one. Some corporate managers, especially at entry levels and certain certified IT specialists, mistakenly believe they are at a sufficient knowledge level; the former seem to be making some decisions, while the latter have presumably passed exams and earned corresponding engineering ranks. However, upon closer examination, it turns out that at best, this is the upper limit of their capacity: managers operate within the same regulations and rules, often finding themselves unable to change even the simplest corporate procedures. Meanwhile, many engineers spend years performing automated and rote tasks related to setting up and configuring, installing, and decommissioning equipment, and consider writing manuals for newcomers to be their peak skill.
Here, one needs to swallow the nasty pill number two. The modern world is built on the foundation of the industrial age, where the perception of people as technical resources with known reliability and performance characteristics was dominant. It is not surprising that the idea of the factory assembly line has been transferred to various industries from medicine to information technology. It is also logical that, within this paradigm, staff are expected to develop skills so that employees can keep pace and keep up with the 'conveyor' process at the enterprise. Those working on the conveyor, and even those managing it, require little special knowledge; what is needed here are skills and strict adherence to instructions.
The final bitter concoction number three is a direct consequence of pill number two. The fact is that in a post-industrial society there is a tendency towards robotization and automation of production and the service sector. In this light, traditional well-regulated and comprehensible jobs at the levels of skills and rules are excellent targets for innovation: cloud technologies, delivery robots, autopilots, and so on. They "threaten" not only subway drivers or shop assistants but also certified IT engineers equally. Therefore, many workers will have to acquire new skills and chase fresh certifications or make every effort to leap into a different area of expertise.
It is naïve to oppose knowledge to skills, as just like without a foundation it’s impossible to build a reliable structure, without skills knowledge cannot be acquired and utilized. Paraphrasing the title of a famous magazine, one could say that skills are power, while knowledge is growth. However, it is important to remember that by training only skills, we condemn ourselves to work on an eternal assembly line, and the only way to break free from this vicious circle and move forward is to gain knowledge.
Source: habr.com
