Can organisational knowledge be managed?

It has been said that knowledge has become a key resource of the economy (Bell 1973). Knowledge is a multifaceted concept within the individuals of an organisation (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). It is therefore necessary to know whether there is a possibility of this knowledge being managed which is the focus of our paper.

Organisations increasingly want to increase the knowledge since there is a transition of economy from a resource based to a knowledge based. It remains a debate whether organisational knowledge can be managed. Organisations need to understand the need for knowledge to be managed. For instance, in a bank there has to be widespread knowledge in different sectors in order to spread the common facts in all parts of the bank. Consider a football club. The nature of business and organisational goals need to be understood by all sections of the organisation in order for the club to prosper. Therefore, organisational knowledge definitely needs to be managed. The only question is though that whether or not this knowledge can be managed?.

The solutions:

Successful companies have in the past managed knowledge effectively. This forces us t think that through proper planning and use of latest technologies, knowledge can be efficiently managed within organisations. Use of technologies like the web 2;0 and the common platform software’s, one can easily distribute information to different parts of organisations. Knowledge management systems are the latest genre of IT applications. These are typically the ones which support decision making and are useful in determining the flow of knowledge within all parts of organisation. Another part of managing knowledge is the re-use of knowledge in different departments of an organisation. Prior to the latest developments in IT , this was done purely as a good managerial practice and was suited to people with good managerial skills. As IT applications have evolved, much of the work has been done through the use of application software’s. Companies are more and more going in for common software’s to automate processes and involving human resources just to use the end products.

Conclusions:

The use of IT has certainly benefited the flow of knowledge. Through proper IT applications and decent managerial skills, we conclude that organisational manage although huge in structure can definitely be managed. Provided of course there is the right mix of technology and managerial skills!!

References:

1: Bell D (1973) – The coming of Post Industrial Society, Basic Books, New York 1973

2: Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L., 1998, Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Web 2.0 Technologies: Is it advantageous in the education industry?

Abstract:
World wide web has changed the role of an individual from an spectator to an actor (Kristaly et al 2008). From being a group work tool for scientists at CERN to becoming a global information space, the web has grown in the past 15 years. Almost all industries have used the services of web 2.0 technologies and the latest to evolve is the education institutes. In this paper, we analyze the potential of web 2.0 technologies in new educational institutes. We shall look at how these technologies have an impact on the education system and whether it is advantageous to promote the use of web 2.0 technologies in educational institutes.
Introduction:
Web 2.0 technologies typically consist of enhancing the use of podcasts, blogs and other discussion forums. New applications like social book-marking, wikis are emerging rapidly. Researches have previously been done on these new technologies in e-learning and traditional educational environments (Rolet et al 2007, Karer 2006, Maloney 2007, D’souza 2007). The attitude of learning is either classified as active or passive. While active learning involves personnel’s, passive learning is defined as a self learning process. This is the area under discussion. Self learning is achieved through the use of web technologies. Web 2.0 technologies promote the use of such learning environments.

Web 2.0 Technologies: Advantages of its use in the educational system.
According to a study conducted by National Training Laboratory in bethel, a lecture is the worst thing in a educational system with an average retention of 5%. With the web 2.0 technologies, we hope to replace the active side of learning with a passive learning. Passive learning or self learning can be achieved through the use of web 2.0 technologies like wikis, blogs etc. By doing this, students can hope to learn in what is called as a “virtual environment”. The benefits of such a system are many. For instance, it reduces the burden on the teaching faculties since they can upload it on the common platform (such as intranet site, blogs etc) and complete their responsibility. This can reduce the time involved in teaching to an enormous extent. Another major advantage of having such a system is that students can self learn the key concepts and gain knowledge through thorough research. Whether or not this system is beneficial is a topic of debate amongst the whole academia. It would be out of our scope to think whether such a system would be “for the good” or “not so good” for the students. But what we can do is to list down the advantages and disadvantages of using the technologies. Other advantages include the right for students to express their own opinions about the subject matter openly. Discussion forms an integral part of knowledge and by such systems we are only promoting the use of discussions. Blogs and wiki’s are good entertainers for some students as well. Such innovative studying increases a student’s interest in studies.

Web 2.0 Technologies: Disadvantages of its use in the educational system:
While the above advantages are all true for the use of such technologies in the academia, a lot of negative points develop while implementing such systems. Firstly, use of systems such as Podcasts means that students would not “bother” to attend classes. This would mean additional burden on the organization (university or college) of employing man-power in the form of faculties and paying them even when there is hardly a response. Another major disadvantage of using such systems is the increase in the man-power in terms of employing more man-power to support the system. Evaluation of systems is a huge problem in such technologies. Whether or not students use this system with good effect is also an area worth considering. Educational organizations need to give out positive results in order to gain competitive edge in the market. With such systems, they need to be making sure they work. Developing such systems is a complex and a monetarily heavy project. Therefore, the organizations need to have a perfect knowledge of the R.O.I that they expect.

Conclusions:
Web 2.0 technologies have a important part to play in educational organizations. These are expensive and complex systems that need a good amount of thinking before organizations can implement them. Based from the potential that these systems give, the advantages of implementing web 2.0 technologies far out number its disadvantages. Therefore, web 2.0 technologies are important to give learning a new innovative experience.


References:
1: Dominic Mircea KRISTALY, Francisc SISAK, Ion TRUICAN, Sorin-Aurel MORARU, Florin SANDU, 2008- Web 2.0 technologies in web application development.

2: Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Dosinger, G., Tochtermann, K. The web 2.0
way of learning with technologies, Int. J. of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87-107,
2007.

3: D'Souza, Q., 100+ web 2.0 ideas for educators: a guide to RSS and more, 2006

4: Karrer, T., Personal learning for learning professionals - using web 2.0 tools to
make reading & research more effective, Mar. 2006

5: Maloney, E. J., What web 2.0 can teach us about learning, The Chronicle:
Information Technology, 53(18), 2007.

Use of Information Technology in Knowledge Management Systems:

Ever since the dot come burst in 2000, IT has come into light. With organizations going global and the need to expand knowledge in a knowledge based economy increasing, IT is at the helm of things. The scope of IT is getting broader with organizations using it for multi purposes ranging from gaining competitive advantage to decision making tools. Knowledge is being defined alternatively as a justified personal belief that induces action (M.Alavi, E.Leidner, 1999). If we go on to say that actions are decision making tools (systems) then it puts us in a stronger position to believe that KMS systems are IT enabled which is our central topic of discussion in this paper.

When we talk about IT and systems, knowledge management systems are not far behind and deserve a shout. As knowledge management changes from being just a concept to becoming more of a practice, attention has been focused on the ways to implement this concept (Davenport et al, 1997) Firms or organizations are said to be a knowledge system who are engaged in creating, storing transfer and application of knowledge (Schneider and Angleman, 1993). Many organizations are creating KMS systems which are nothing but information systems (M. Alvi, Leidner- 1999). Although some authors say that IT alone cannot be used as a KMS (R.Mcdermot), few disagree on the fact that IT is a part of KMS. Given the modern innovations and easy access to technologies like web 2.0 traditional means of sharing knowledge are fast being replaced by IT. IT based knowledge management systems have number of advantages. From reducing time and cost to distributing and managing knowledge, these systems can act as multi-purpose systems. The terms distribution and “managing” knowledge can be replaced by saying secure access to information”. The purpose of a IT based systems primarily is the distribution of right information to the right kind of people made available at the right time.

IT enabled knowledge management systems has its failures too. To elaborate on a failure, the best example would be the use of Lotus, a new collaboration technology introduced by America’s Texaco Company. This technology did was supposed to collaborate and co-ordinate people within the organization. However, with time they came to know that the system was being used by the people in only e-mailing each other. Therefore steps had to be taken again to evaluate and create awareness. As another case study on the failures of KMS using IT, the author (R.Mcdermot) describes the use of a system in a consumer products company. As part of a KMS, the company made it mandatory for its consumers to update on an electronic database the work done in a day. Within weeks the database became full of information but it was hardly accessed. Also, with the tasks being made mandatory, employees felt “bored” and “overworked”. The author is pessimistic about IT being used in a KMS system. However given the outrageous work done by wiki’s and other web technologies, it is tough to agree with the author’s views. However, for KMS to be used in organizations care has to be taken to check the flow of information and that it is confined to boundaries within the organization. Other precautions include the proper spread of the system in organization and the belief about the potential of the system to all members within the organization. Primary functions as described earlier must be maintained and followed. Systems need to be evaluated once evolved before putting it for testing.

To conclude we can say that knowledge management systems can be best coupled with IT. There may be (if there are any) knowledge management systems without IT involvement, but given the scope and potential of the web and IT technologies we would like to believe, IT has a definite and a major role in implementing systems that work! Knowledge Management Systems!


References:

1: Marayam Alavi, Dorothy Leidner, 1999- Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits, Volume 1, Article 7, February 1999

2: Richard Mcdermot, 1999- Why Information Technology Inspired but cannot deliver Knowledge Management, Vol.41, no:4, California Management Review.

3: Schneider. S.C.,and Angleman, R. “Cognition in the Organizational Analysis: Who is
minding the Store?” Organization Studies, Vol. 14, 1993, pp. 347-374.

4:Thomas J. Davenport, David W. De Long, Michael C Beers- 1997- Building Sucessful Knowledge Management Projects, centre for business innovation working paper January 1997.

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.

Knowledge management and organizations; social networking and community of practice.

Knowledge Management: Organizations and Strategies; Social Networking.

In my previous post, I have given a brief introduction to the term knowledge management. I shall now throw some light on organizations and strategies and also look at a new term social networking and community of practice.

Knowledge management with regards to organizations and strategies gives more meaning to the term knowledge management and underlines the importance of knowledge management to us. The ability to convert data into meaningful structure so that it is of benefit to the organization is what in my opinion can be termed as knowledge. It is the complex task of using data and information meaningfully and strategically to gain monetarily. Knowledge management is perhaps that aspect of business which is tough to transfer and/or teach. It is more of a skill gained through continuous evaluation of the market with regards to the company and business environment. Knowledge management in my opinion is not a lesson that can be learnt via texts and other literature. Although there are tools available for knowledge management experts, it is still the ability to use it appropriately that sets good managers apart from the rest.

Social Networking: Social networking is the newest form of networking. It is an extension to the word networking in real life. Networking in real life indicates meeting new people, exchanging contacts, etc. Social networking is basically meeting up people through an online platform. Social networking sites typically consist of a user created profile with photos and editable questions. Through social networking, users can interact each other more innovatively and it is this buzz that has seen sites like facebook and orkut become top favorites. From a business point of view, social networking sites’s majority of revenue comes from advertising. Given the growing craze of such sites, it is not hard to believe that such websites are increasing by the day.

Community of Practice:

Community of practice is a term given to learning through the society. CoP is a unique kind of learning that occurs when people with shared social interests work towards attaining a certain goal. Again in my views, it is yet another door for people to share information and gain knowledge.

Ps: I would request people to give me more insight on the concept of Community of Practice.