Knowledge Management Models: A Critical Study

Knowledge Management has gained a new importance in recent years. One of the major problems seen in knowledge management is that knowledge is not spread equally in the organization (Mark E. Nissen , 2002). Agreeing on the above statement we can safely say there is a need for a model to be followed. By following a streamlined model, we can hope to spread knowledge effectively in organizations which is one of the prime objectives of knowledge management. Scholars from all over the globe have tried to build models that can suit organizations to follow and manage knowledge effectively. Organizations over the years have tried to develop various tools to manage knowledge effectively. In this paper we shall try and look at the various ways in which the models are adapted or built on, then try and see what could be the best practice or what model would suit an organization and then try and see a real world example.

Several models are adapted by organizations. The basic and the most famous model known as the SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi) used more than one genre of classification. Typically the model was epistemological in nature. I say so simply because the model did not have the potential to adapt to several external environment factors. SECI model although gained much impetus and was used in various Japanese organizations since it evolved. Again we have another classification here. We can safely say that since the model was used extensively in Japan, it was more "Asian" oriented. We can see that there can be more than one classification of a particular type of model. I therefore go on the same lines as (Earl, M 2001) by saying that Knowledge management models have more than one school of thought. Another classification was the life-cycle of knowledge management. This was more focused on the hierarchy of knowledge flow. The technique was more of a technocratic type according to me since it was backed up on strong technical grounds. Another classification we can cover the model into based on one of the school of thoughts is philosophical. The model was more of a theoretical concept. Developed by (Nissen M, 2002) the technique classified various models based on the life cycle of knowledge management. Typically the life cycle had six possible phases running. Models used some or all or most of them as per their needs. For instance the Amalgamated model integrates all four cycles and key terms to develop its own model called as the Amalgamated life cycle model.

Best Practice Model.
Models are just a way of following things. It is not more than a sequence of events to be followed. However, knowledge management is a “dynamic process”. Therefore, models even though researched upon might not provide best solutions in day to day working of the organization. Therefore, in my opinion, although a model is necessary for the smooth functioning of activities in the organization, it should not be a rigid process that “must be practiced religiously” in the organization. Therefore, no single model can be a best practice model. Having said that there are models which suit an organization more than others, but the nature of model depends completely on the nature of organization. For instance companies like British Petroleum have built in their own models according to tailored needs of the organization. The diversity in defining the concepts of information and data (meaning what is information to one is data for another) is similar to saying the diversity in selecting a particular model for an organization.


Towards a new model- The WIZWIG Model:

I have constructed a real world model for a business consulting organization. For knowledge to be spread in all areas within the organization there is a definite need for a model. However, since the business needs a genuine awareness of the external environment so as to provide in-depth analysis to its clients (businesses), it needs to be “dynamic”. In my model I have selected a set of four activities which are central for the organization. These activities are :
1: Information Gathering: This is in terms of collecting facts and figures. We can term this as explicit knowledge since it is available to all.

2: Gathering Tacit Knowledge: This activity typically consists of gathering information which is known only to the client company, for instance, the working environment, the staff, the local perception, the general reputation of the company etc. This knowledge shall be gained from the clients.

Activities I and II have to be spread to different parts in the organization. In my opinion, now they become information which is where SECI model proves incorrect. Knowledge has now been converted to information for all members in the consulting organization (our organization).

3: Environmental know-how: This step is the most crucial according to me. A good consultant should have the general know-how of the latest trends in market. These concepts are deeply tacit meaning that there is no other way to learn them other than studying the environment and applying experiences.

4: Experience: This is a subset of the activity performed in step III. Applying knowledge and experiences to the external environment puts the client in a state wherein they can dictate terms and create a market for themselves. By applying previous experience the consultant (we) can come up with ready solutions to suit the needs of the clients.

5: Management theories: Care must be taken that no decisions should be taken as abstract. Decisions based purely upon gut feeling and intuitions may affect the client adversely.

`



References:

1: Mark E. Nissen 2002, AN EXTENDED MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-FLOW
DYNAMICS
Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Volume 8, 2002) 251-266

2: Earl M. (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Towards a Taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems. 18,(1),p.215-233.

3: Nissen M, 2002- AN EXTENDED MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-FLOW
DYNAMICS, Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Volume 8, 2002) 251-266

The "KID" Kit

The terms knowledge information and data have all been interpreted in as many ways as the number of people who have researched upon it. The ‘KID’ as they say is too complex to understand simply because of the many similarities between them. A school of thought says that it is not at all important to consider the differences between them. Infact, some scholars say that the whole concept of knowledge management is “nonsense” (T.D.Wilson, 2002). In my opinion, a general know-how of what is what should be known but the kind of impetus the subject is getting is way too much (of course for my liking). Data, information and knowledge are subsets of each other in my opinion. Each gives rise to the other. Scholars classify these as the subsets of human mind with two additional terms understanding and wisdom (Russel Ackoff, 1989). The more one goes on to think the more terms he comes to know. For instance, a little research would get you data, some more could give you information; brainstorming sessions can give you knowledge and experience gives you wisdom. Therefore, i feel the more one goes deep in the topic, the more one gets to know.

Data in simplest terms is a statement with “no relevance”. It is a fact or a statement which is true to a particular context. Information is when this data is applied to a particular context and becomes useful for a set of people. When information is applied to a particular context and benefited from, then it becomes knowledge.

Real world:

Let us try and apply this context in the real world. Consider a retail organization like Tesco. Customers in Tesco are constantly monitored in their purchase of products. This is done through their club cards. Now, the whole set of customers purchasing products would be the data for the company. Acting upon that data to find out similarities in product purchase for finding the preference to a particular product for a particular customer would become information.

Now, this information when acted upon or processed in some manner would become knowledge. For example, if a customer regularly buys eggs, then a short discount on the product would be issued for that customer, or some substitute product would be advertised to him. Now without a general know-how of what all to distribute, the company would not know what to advertise. This is the closest example I could sight in the real world which would distinguish between the three terms. This in itself looks confusing and in a way tells us the story. The fact is that there is very little distinction between the terms and when rightfully used to benefit the organization, it does not matter whether it is data, information or knowledge that helped the company.

References:

1: T.D.Wilson, 2002- The nonsense of 'knowledge management'

Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, October 2002

2: Russel Ackoff, 1989- "From Data to Wisdom", Journal of Applies Systems Analysis, Volume 16, 1989 p 3-9.

Knowledge Management Definitions.

Knowledge Management Definitions:

Everyone keeps on saying that the concept of knowledge management is like a pool. The more you go inside it the vaster it is to understand it. Below I provide a brief insight of what I think about knowledge management derived from reading various literatures.

Knowledge is an organizational asset used by organizations to create a competitive advantage in a highly competitive market ( Alavi, Leidner, 1999). Therefore KMS can be said to be a tool used by organizations for their progress. Knowledge management is thought of as a set of four activities viz: develop, distribute, combine and consolidate (Wiig et al,1997). This thought quite excites me when we think of managing knowledge. Knowledge is an immeasurable asset and cannot be measured. So we are talking about managing something which cannot be measured. This puts a lot of confusion as to what exactly we need to manage. The more we think about knowledge management the more we are likely to get confused. According to me, if we are looking at different organizations the term can be altered accordingly. Managing a set of information for one organization might not be needed at all by another organization. For example, consider a IT services provider company. The need to manage the latest developments in technology and spread it in the organization is mandatory for that company; while the company who provides business to such companies (clients) need not have such knowledge spread in all their departments.

Definitions are at plenty and it would be best if we limit it to our use in the organization. Some organizations need the spread of knowledge in all departments while others may not promote the spread of certain “tacit” knowledge in all departments. Therefore, I feel it is best to limit the definitions to specific organizations.

PS: Correct me if I am wrong!! Comments are welcome!

References:

1: Maryam Alavi, Dorothy E. Leidner, 1999- KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: ISSUES, CHALLENGES, and BENEFITS.

2: Karl Wiig, Robert Hoog, Rob Van Der Spek,1997- Supporting Knowledge Management: a selection of methods and techniques.