Can organisational knowledge be managed?

The former Chief Justice of Kenya, Mr Benard Chunga, worked-up by an 'experts' report, once roared on TV (Chunga 2002):

"Experts on what, for what, about what? What are they experts for?"

You may want to ask:

"Knowledge on what, for what, about what? What knowledge to manage?"

Interesting and thought-provoking questions. The article title invites intellectual debate. First, is there a rationale for organisational knowledge to be managed? Yes there is. When organisations downsize with the one-sided view of cutting costs, it doesn't take long before they realize what valuable knowledge, crucial for their competitiveness, is lost through the laying off of talented and experienced staff (Yang 2004). What about information overload? As other big organisations like University of Cambridge demonstrate, massive amounts of knowledge generated by activities like publishing need creative management tools to pick relevant knowledge (Hanka and Fuka 2000).

Having established the rationale, then the question is: How do we manage this organisational knowledge? As the value of knowledge changes quickly due to massive information generated in today's workplaces, one cannot manage knowledge, rather the learning process (Kakabadse, Kakabadse and Kouzmin 2003). We should stop this fixation on tacit-explicit knowledge conversation limited notion and move to a more comprehensive new paradigm, otherwise managing knowledge is but content management (Snowden 2002). The debate goes on and on. The list is endless.

It is clear from such debates that not even various researchers and authors have come up with a conclusive and coherent view on how to manage organisational knowledge. That being the case, we need to find a middle-of-the road approach to give us tools in managing organisational knowledge. One useful model in KM is Cynefin model.

Cynefin model

Designed by (Snowden 2002), this model looks at organisational characteristics falling into four domain spaces (Figure 1) below. In order to manage knowledge properly, decision makers have to apply different styles of management.


What this model proposes is that organisations have to move away from the mistaken belief that entities are complicated to a more rational approach that those entities are indeed complex with the ability to self-organize in order to manage organisational knowledge effectively.

The model has been applied successfully in various private and public sector organisations like Australian's Department of Defence (Warne et al. 2004). In his research paper, Girard(2005) reports how the co-evolvement aspect of the Cynefin model has been successfully used in Intel's Expertise Location System (ELS) and Xerox's Eureka system. Infact, he acknowledges that "This premise is why the Intel ELS and Eureka systems work so well".

The model doesn't escape censure though. Sherif(2006) doesn't see how it handles the micro processes that form the KM's adaptive strategy. Well, what is to be taken into account is that the complexity of managing organisational knowledge has its own challenges. For instance, a research undertaken by Yang(2004) on two international five-star hotels based in Taiwan revealed some impediments to managing organisational knowledge like knowledge transfer experiences and hoarding.

In conclusion, organisations need to see how critical managing knowledge resources within their portfolio is, not only for fighting fierce competition, but responding creatively to unpredictable markets (Sherif 2006). They need to apply meaningful tools like the model suggested by this paper.

References

Chunga, B. 2002. Quoted in Sihanya and Kichana, 2004.

Girard, J.P. 2005. Taming enterprise dementia in public sector organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management 18(6):534-45.

Hanka, R., and K. Fuka. 2000. Information overload and 'just-in-time' knowledge. The Electronic Library 18(4):279-85.

Kakabadse, N., A. Kakabadse, A. Kouzmin. 2003. Reviewing the knowledge management literature: towards a taxonomy. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(4):75-91.

Sherif, K. 2006. An adaptive strategy for managing knowledge in organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management 10(4):72-80.

Sihanya, B. and P. Kichana eds. 2004. Judicial Reform in Kenya, 1998-2003. Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) No.1 Judiciary Watch Series. http://www.icj-kenya.org/publications/judiciary_watch_edition1.pdf (accessed March 30, 2009).

Snowden, D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(2):100-11.

Warne, L., I. Ali, D. Bopping, D. Hart, and C. Pascoe. 2004. The Network Centric Warrior:The Human Dimension of Network Centric Warfare. Defence Systems Analysis Division http://203.10.217.104/publications/3430/DSTO-CR-0373.pdf (accessed April 02, 2009).

Yang, J-T. 2004. Job related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(3):118-26.

Organisational Knowledge Management Systems and IT Support

Transactional Processing Systems(TPS). Management Information Systems(MIS). Decision Support Systems(DSS). Executive Information Systems(EIS). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP). Supplier Chain Management (SCM). Customer Relationship Management (CRM). Expert Systems (ES). What a hell of 'systems'. They are too much. Knowledge Management Systems(KMS). Another 'system'?

Not so in the really sense. A KMS takes a different paradigm to traditional IS systems mentioned above. Traditional IS systems are decomposing in nature i.e. a problem to be addressed by the IS is broken down into sub-problems. The sub-problems can be broken further into smaller units where it is easy to build procedural code to address them. Viewed from this perspective, then they can be seen as being "code-centric" where individual procedures and modules are pierced together, compiled and executed in computing platforms such as operating systems.

KMS are complex in nature. In an organizational context, they identify entities in the organization that constitute knowledge, communicate those entities' knowledge horizontally and vertically and use IT resources to support the communication (Moteleb and Woodman 2009). From this perspective, one can safely say that they are not "code-centric".

Organizations are constantly having demanding environmental challenges that have to be addressed to remain competitive (Zack 1998). The question that has always been around is: What newer ways should we be constantly looking for to help us remain competitive? Newer approaches aim to identify KM issues within organizational challenges and build an appropriate KMS to be supported by IT.

Developing an IT supported KMS in an organization

One recent model for such a KMS has been proposed by Moteleb and Woodman(2009). In their model, the KMS development approach has been characterised into three mutually dependent aspects as follows:

Whereas this model is particularly useful to SMEs, it has some few issues that need to be addressed. For example, how can their findings be extrapolated to benefit large scale multinational organizations, who, contrary to their contention that their services are integrated, might not always be the case? Are there not significant KM problems in large organizations that the organizations will be happy to be addressed by researchers? Which future direction should research take in regard to this issue?

To supplement this model, the impact of the cultural component of a KMS should be seriously considered, irrespective of how much support IT resources give, in the meaningful development of a KMS like the complicated communications of the USS Wasp Navy vessel (Call 2005). The research carried by King, Kruger and Pretorius (2007) in a large multicultural organisation in South Africa demonstrate how the cultural aspects play a central role in a KMS.

Development of an IT supported KMS is not for the faint-hearted. Extra care, patience and precautions, especially in regard to the usage of KM terms, should be taken when using the participatory approach to the design (Wagner and Piccoli 2007). Otherwise we run into the risk of exasperated users frustrated, in their view, by abstract KM terminologies and difficulties, as exemplified by the following user comments posted at Denham Grey's blog (Grey 2005):

This is really a crazy world. How can anybody understand all this crazy stuff all around? It's so meaningless, but in one way it's fantastic!

Since IT support is one of the thrusts of this paper, it (paper) argues that IT by itself is not an end, but a means to an end i.e. the support of IT doesn't guarantee the success of a KMS. How IT is deployed, especially to focus on business processes, is critical in supporting the alignment of a KMS to organisational performance and competitive advantage strategies. As Malhotra(2005) demonstrates in his work, not sealing the technology gaps between technology inputs, knowledge processes and organisational performance can lead to failures of KMS implementations. If that happens as it does often, should we then raise our hands and utter the often-quoted cliche: "technology is just an enabler of business processes" (Call 2005) in justifying such KMS failures?

References:

Grey, D. 2005. KM models - mix & match. Betty Bo's comments at http://denham.typepad.com/km/2003/11/km_models.html?cid=5138954#comment-5138954 (accessed March 21, 2009).

Call, D. 2005. Knowledge management - not rocket science. Jounal of Knowledge Management 9(2):19-30.

King, N., N. Kruger, J. Pretorius. 2007. Knowledge management in a multicultural environment: a South African perspective. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 59(3):285-99.

Malhotra, Y. eds. 2001. Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Malhotra, Y. 2005. Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 9(1):7-28.

Moteleb, A., and M. Woodman. 2009. Uncovering a KMSD Approach from Practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (eJKM)

Wagner, E.L. and G. Piccoli. 2007. Moving beyond user participation to achieve successful IS design. Communications of ACM 50(12):51-5.

Zack, M. H. 1998. If Managing Knowledge is the Solution, Then What’s the Problem? Quoted in Malhotra, 2001. http://web.cba.neu.edu/~mzack/articles/fourprob/fourprob.htm (accessed March 24, 2009).

Web 2.0 Technologies

When the Briton Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, did he realize what kind of 'monster' his invention was likely to mutate to a few years down the line? His was an innocent concept of a virtual space where things such as documents were interlinked on a global scale (Anderson 2007). But what do you do with the consequences of a brilliant idea whose time has come as Frenchman Victor Hugo lamented in his History of a Crime (Wikiversity n.d.):

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come"

If you haven't heard it, then welcome to the brave world of Web 2.0. To begin with, the open nature of the Internet technologies enabled Sir Berners-Lee's idea to grow into the huge 'monster' that the Web is with its very many tentacles - applications, services etc. - as a result of the creative minds of the worldwide audience the Web environment provides. The problem with this 'monster' is that it is growing tremendously and in strange ways that there is a feeling that it has entered another phase of its metamorphosis - thus Web 2.0.

But what is this Web 2.0? Is this not one of those terminologies coined every other time as this Web 'monster' keeps growing in strange ways? Well, according to Anderson (2007), Web 2.0 is "an umbrella term that attempts to express explicitly the framework of ideas that underpin attempts to understand the manifestations of these newer Web services within the context of technologies that have produced them". Wow, what kind of explanation! Web 2.0 emphasizes web content generated by user, social collaboration technologies and newer ways to connect with internet applications (Franklin and van Harmelen 2007).

To be more focussed, let us look at some of these Web 2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, tagging etc) and the role they play in supporting knowledge management especially in higher education. A detailed definition of these Web 2.0 technologies is outside the scope of this article.

Role of Web 2.0 technologies in supporting KM

Web 2.0 technologies are particularly useful in enhancing learning and teaching at institutions of higher learning like universities (Franklin and van Harmelen 2007) which are citadels of knowledge. Because there is a high concentration of knowledge assets within their portfolio, universities need to manage these assets properly. In other words, they should practice what they preach. Among newer approaches they can use to foster and enhance their academic teaching and learning to their students is the collaborative technologies the Web 2.0 provide. Question is: how?

Take the case of students doing Knowledge Management Strategies module in Middlesex University as part of their MSc programme. Each student has created a blog where they can post any viewpoint or thoughts like what I am doing in this post and being one of the said students. They then critique or support each others work through comments. Such an approach is different from some of the conventional methods like reading from a textbook or journals.

In this blogging approach, it is more intellectually satisfying compared to reading a textbook as it creates a sense of communal learning, an aspect supported by work done by Gross and Leslie(2008) at Edith Cowan University. Also, it helps in improving writing and communication skills, a key learning outcome of any course, enabling students to comprehend better the subject matter. With blogging, knowledge can be shared easily, refined, retained and transferred - what knowledge management efforts seek to do.

What about wikis? Who can deny the enormous advantages and ease of use that Wikipedia provides? Is the knowledge there on different subjects, people, places etc, as a result of collaborative efforts, not much richer? Even though some academics contest the veracity of its content like Rosenzweig(2006), it is definitely a huge reservoir of knowledge.

Wikis enable a group of students and their tutors to work collaboratively in exploring and extending knowledge on a given area of interest. Unlike the conventional approach of website development where users are passive readers and consumers of web content, wikis enable users to co-author and share their thoughts on a given subject. For example, in developing a wiki by a group of students, some can create new web pages and ask their colleagues to populate them, while others can check spelling and grammatical errors of the wiki content. This way, it not only helps students to improve writing skills like the case of blogs, but helps spur creativity and spawn new ideas - necessary attributes for innovation (Bryant 2007).

There are quite a number of higher education institutions where wikis have been used successfully as new models of learning and teaching. For example, at Tallinn University's Institute of Information Studies, students use wiki tools within their learning environment named IVA to collaboratively develop their projects (Virkus 2008). At the University of Applied Sciences Soloturn's department of education, they use a wiki named TWiki for teacher education, despite barriers like English language difficulties (Doebeli-Honegger 2005).

However, not all is glossy when it comes to Web 2.0 social software and tools. They have their challenges as well as they are relatively newer technologies with so much experimentation going on. For instance, with the open source software foundation these technologies are based, wikis are prone to sometimes low-quality writing, errors and influence of special groups (Bryant 2007). Some "old-world teachers" can be uncomfortable in their teaching by using alien methods in unfamiliar ways like what Web 2.0 offers (Franklin and van Harmelen 2007).

References:

Anderson, P. 2007. What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf (accessed March 01, 2009).

Bryant, L. 2007. Emerging trends in social software for education. Emerging Technologies for Learning 2:9-22. http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07_chapter1.pdf (accessed March 29, 2009).

Doebeli-Honegger, B. 2005. Wikis - a Rapidly Growing Phenomenon in the German-Speaking School Community. International Symposium on Wikis 2005. http://www.wikisym.org/ws2005/proceedings/paper-10.pdf (accessed March 29, 2009).

Franklin, T., and M. van Harmelen. 2007. Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. JISC. http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/148/1/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf (accessed March 23, 2009).

Gross, J., and L. Leslie. 2008. Twenty-three steps to learning Web 2.0 technologies in an academic library. The Electronic Library 26(6):790-802.

Rosenzweig, R. 2006. Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past. The Journal of American History 93(1):117-46 http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 (accessed March 29, 2009).

Virkus, S. 2008. Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program: electronic library and information systems 42(3):262-74.

Wikiversity. n.d. Victor Hugo Quote - Wikiversity. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo_quote ( accessed March 01, 2009).

Knowledge Management Models

Quality production of any product or service provision requires good modelling at initial stages. This can be observed in many fields. For example, in the building industry, before a new housing estate or major building comes up, architectural drawings - models - are done usually on paper, depicting how the finished housing estate or building will look like. Same case with stadiums, bridges, cars, airplanes, software applications, business management etc.

KM is not left out i.e. what are those best models, when applied to KM strategies, make KM efforts worthwhile to organizations. It should be noted from the word go that a model is not a 'cut and paste' proposition that applies to all situations, but rather tries to explain the conceptual frameworks upon which KM is understood (or viewed) and applied. Where one model works in a given situation, it does not necessarily mean that it will also work well in different circumstances or situations. How one interprets and selects a model, or combines ingredients from different models to make a meaningful composite model, is key to successful KM strategy efforts. Otherwise models remain just that - abstracts.

How many models are out there? Well I suppose many. Even as I am writing, somebody somewhere is busy crafting one. As such, let us look at a few KM models that have been developed in the nascent KM discipline in order to get a flavour of what this KM models is all about.

1. SECI model

Designed by (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), and a good review done by (Wake 2004). Here, the proposition suggests that KM should be looked from four dimensions, best described diagrammatically by separately putting each dimension in the four quadrants of the rectangle. In the 1st quadrant, and going clockwise, tacit knowledge is shared and transferred in social interactions - thus Socialisation. In the 2nd quadrant, source tacit knowledge is put in expressible manner to external recipient (outside of tacit source) - thus Externalisation. In the 3rd quadrant, explicit knowledge is combined - Combination, while in the fourth quadrant, explicit knowledge sinks well to a recipient and becomes tacit - thus Internalisation.

However, this model has been criticized as being pro-Asian, even rubbished as a "two-by-two diagram" (Wilson 2002).

2. Boisot's model

In this model by (Boisot 1987) - and good review done by (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999)-, knowledge is seen as encoded in some "codified" version, available publicly or accessed in restricted "proprietary" form. Otherwise knowledge exists in some "uncodified" version in what we normally call personal knowledge or common sense. Looking at this model further, the public knowledge and common sense is open to all - "diffused" - while the opposite is true i.e. "proprietary" and personal knowledge is restricted - "undiffused".

One can therefore draw parallels with SECI's model, only a change of knowledge dimensions.

3. Quantum model

This is what I can call a "supra" model, i.e. a model of models. (Kakabadse et al., 2003) presents this proposition in a matrix of sorts. At the outer layer, knowledge is viewed in terms of context (strategic, operations) or approach (IT dependent or people dependent). If we draw parallels with the SECI model for the inner layers, the dimensions are then seen in terms of categories (themselves models). If knowledge is seen as being shared in relationships, i.e. networking, put it in the 1st quadrant. What if we view knowledge from Socrates eclectic line of reasoning i.e. philosophical approach? Then put it in the second quadrant. When knowledge is shared in a social/communal way, put it in the 3rd quadrant. But is knowledge not a valuable asset to an organisation's success? Put it in the fourth quadrant.

Once you have done all these, you then connect to the outer layer. Map the networking and organisational views to IT dependent approach. With the social/communal and philosophical views, map them to people dependent approach. Alternatively, map the networking and philosophical views to the strategic context, with the social/communal and organisational views being mapped to operations context.

Enough of the literature please!!

Applying KM models to KM strategy

Construction or selection of KM models should be based on their ability to augment and optimize an organization's KM strategy. For instance, suppose an organization designs a KM that involves staff encoding their explicit knowledge into a shared repository, or accessing the knowledge from the repository (assuming that the repository is already populated). Let us call this KM strategy 1. Models associated this KM strategy should strive to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. SECI model is an example.

Suppose another KM strategy involves staff requesting expertise knowledge on as and when needed from fellow staff proficient in a given subject. Let us call this KM strategy 2. Models associated with this KM strategy will have to have social/communal aspects.

So what is my point here? Without deviating too much from KM models, let me explain by giving an example.

In my workplace at Car and General, we were the authorised dealers and resellers of Alfa Romeo and Fiat cars from Italy and South Africa. Customers who bought cars from us were given a warranty, if I remember correctly, of free parts replacement (due to manufacturer's defects and not user's inappropriate use) and service labour for the first two years or 20,000km covered (whichever came first) as part of the after-sales service.

One day, a customer who had bought an Alfa Romeo 156 TS, brought it back for service complaining about the rattling behaviour of the engine and wondered aloud why a brand new car would behave that way. After carrying the initial electronic diagnostics, the electronic software traced the problem to a faulty air-filter. The customer had gone for a weekend trip upcountry. Most rural roads are not tarmacked and there is a lot of dust which choked the air-filter.

The electronic software only diagnoses the faults, but doesn't indicate how to fix them. The mechanics wanted to replace the air-filter. But loo, on opening the bonnet, there was no air-filter. In most cars, the air filter is in the bonnet, but for the Alfa 156, as we came to know later, the filter is hidden between the dashboard and the engine. The mechanics whose knowledge was limited to the bonnet, as far as the location of the air-filter is concerned, were under pressure to fix the filter - the customer was 'breathing fire' that the car had not been fixed after 3 to 4 days.

The solution lay in the knowledge base CDs supplied by the manufacturer from Italy whose language medium is Italian - a language problem here, given that we are used to English. The mechanics had earlier tried to use the knowledge base CDs on their own, but in vain, because for one to access the contents of the CDs, an application to access them was to be installed in a special way in a PC.

To cut a long story short, the mechanics requested me (an expert in systems installation) to help them access the contents of the CDs. I struggled to install the application - remember Earl's systems school (Earl 2001) as reviewed by (Blackman and Henderson, 2005)-, but finally managed, and presto, we were able to get to the contents, whose graphical interface showed the exact position of the air-filter. Within a matter of minutes, the problem was fixed and the car was gliding on the highway like an 'aeroplane'.

Can you see where the two KM strategies described above come in? The knowledge was codified and stored in a repository (CDs) and available for retrieval to the mechanics - KM strategy 1. The mechanics were experts in the car's mechanisms, but needed expert help in systems and applications - KM strategy 2.

Just wondering, would this have been KM in action without us being aware?

References

Blackman, D., Henderson, S.(2005), "Know ways in knowledge management", The Learning Organization, Vol.2 No.2, pp.152-168

Boisot, M.(1987), "Information and Organisations: The Manager as an Anthropologist", Fontana/Collins, London

Earl, M.(2001), "Knowledge Management Strategies: toward a taxonomy", Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.18 No.1, pp.215-33

Kakabadse, N., Kakabadse, A., Kouzmin, A.(2003), "Reviewing the knowledge management literature: towards a taxonomy", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp.75-91

McAdam, R., McCreedy S.(1999), "A critical review of knowledge management models", The Learning Journal, Vol. 6 No.3

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.(1995), "The Knowledge Creating Company", Oxford University Press

Wake, W.(2004), "Review: Knowledge-Creating Company". Available at http://xp123.com/xplor/xp0402/index.shtml Accessed on [09/02/2009]

Wilson T.(2002), "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'", Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144. [Available at http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html. Accessed [09/02/2009]

Earl's 7 Knowledge Management Schools

Knowledge, being such slippery and elusive term to define, has led to so many theories and assumptions to prop up with no converge - more confusion and chaos. Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) - some commentators call them Expert Systems (ES) - have been developed to aid the knowledge management efforts. These KMSs try to simulate the intellect of the human expertise in creating, storing, sharing and transferring knowledge. Simply said, KMS is a process, not knowledge itself.
However, the management of this knowledge needs some sort of classification to give some semblance of order. In 2001, Michael Earl tried to map knowledge management into a taxonomy of seven KMS schools, each based on existing and observable practice. This taxonomy grouped these schools into three categories, namely:

• Technocratic
• Economic
• Behavioural

In their supplemental paper to Earl's framework, Deborah Blackman and Steven Henderson (Blackman and Henderson, 2005) have helped summarise the seven schools as follows:

• Systems school. This school puts emphasis on knowledge creation with no help available, that is further validated by esteemed peers, codified and stored in a KMS. To me, this is "learning the hard way". A question arises: What criteria is used to label one an esteemed peer, or who holds these esteemed peers in such high esteem?
• Cartographic school. In this school, KMS identifies only the knower of the tacit knowledge i.e. it is a directory of experts
• Process school. This school consists of two components arising from business process reengineering (BPR) i.e. the description of the process plus output generated by such process. It seems to be a hybrid between systems and cartographic schools.

Earl classified these three schools i.e. process, cartographic and systems in the "technocratic" category. They lack knowledge on business performance improvements, even though this missing knowledge is available within the organization and can be transferred effectively and accurately.

• Commercial school. As the name suggests, this school seeks to market and sell knowledge as a commodity. Unlike the technocratic schools where knowledge is accessed and shared to knowledge seekers, this school restricts knowledge to customers an organization considers profitable. It is the only one Earl categorized as "economic".
• Organizational school. This school focuses on collaborating knowledge in a learning community by strengthening the ties between different knowledge holders. It is a community of practice (CoP).
• Spatial school. This school fronts its argument that modern management practices - such as hierarchical structures -, commercial buildings and technology are an antithesis to a conducive environment for learning, knowledge sharing, discussions and bonding. It suggests that space must be set aside for exciting new ideas to emerge. Thus the name spatial.
• Strategic school. The name says it all. A word of caution though: it doesn't mean that all the other schools cannot support an organization's competitive strategy. The difference of thought with this school compared to others is that in the other schools, not all knowledge is immediately strategic. Also, this school looks at, in addition to the internal improvements and problem solving, the bigger corporate picture.

References

Blackman, D., Henderson, S.(2005), "Know ways in knowledge management", The Learning Organization, Vol.2 No.2, pp.152-168.

Knowledge Management (KM)

According to various schools of thought, there is no single definition of KM or agreement of what constitutes KM. Because of this, KM needs to be looked at in the broadest sense. Respected CIO.Com defines KM thus:

the process through which organisations generate value from their intellectual and knowledge-based assets. Most often, generating value from such assets involves codifying what stakeholders know, and sharing that information in an effort to devise best practices.

Online YourDictionary defines KM as:

"The process of creating, institutionalizing, and distributing knowledge among people for the purpose of improving and organizing business processes and practices"

Another way to look at KM is to state its objectives. In his research paper, Karl Wiig (Wiig 1997) states the objectives as:

1. To make an enterprise act as intelligently as possible to secure its viability and overall success.
2. To otherwise realize the best value of its knowledge assets.

Put in another way, according to him, "the overall purpose of KM is to maximize the enterprise's knowledge related effectiveness and returns from its knowledge assets and to renew them constantly"

My view condenses the definition of knowledge management to creating, sharing, reusing, refining, cleansing or deleting worn-out knowledge and transferring knowledge within individuals or organizations.

Understanding this concept of knowledge management per se without putting it into some context is really not meaningful. I thus proceed to apply it in an organizational context.

Role of KM in an organization

The sobering reality as a result of the fierce international competition and increased customer demands, has pushed organizations to appreciate knowledge as a critical factor in maintaining competitiveness. Yesteryear business models have been turned upside down - the heavy machinery manufacturing and production being increasing phased out by astute clever products and services anchored on highly knowledge-based assets. That is why for instance, more than 70% of new jobs created in the US since 1998 require high level knowledge (Capozzi 2007).

The tremendous technological developments that have rapidly changed the global landscape, have at their core, well attuned intellectual capabilities developed as a result of the human mind's curiosity and belief in knowledge. These highly knowledge-based assets have enabled organizations to design and develop what I can call "sharper" products and services capable of penetrating even the thickest of markets, just in time, in a cost-effective manner. And this doesn't apply to the world of business alone. For instance, in the field of medicine, a clinician needs to develop sophisticated KM skills in order to practice effectively (Sensky 2002).

If it is not well developed knowledge management, what else can explain the momentous growth of Microsoft? How else can one express Japan's gigantic growth since World War two - if not well managed individual and organizational intellectual capital?

But hey, not all that is said about KM is gospel truth. In his classical article, TD Wilson (Wilson 2002) wonders how any amount of data warehousing (another KM tool) talk to a poorly-rewarded sales force improves good customer relations. He strongly argues that this 'knowledge management' term is sort of 'information management' by other name, citing 'information' as being baptized 'explicit knowledge' in KM. Thus according to him, this KM is a 'management fad' that will peter away, and therefore meaningless to an organization.

Whereas his points are strong and in order to balance the debate, I have a critique on some areas in his article which are not clear and causing considerable confusion. For instance, he asks: How is it possible to transfer 'knowledge' into a database? I ask the question: How did he come to know what he knows if some sort of 'knowledge' was not available in some expressible form? If this sort of 'knowledge' is available in some expressible form (say a book), can't it be stored in a database, say in a memo field? Doesn't he know the definition of a database? Or is it that everything in expressible form that needs to be known is 'information', in his view? On what rationale does he allege that it is possible to transfer data about what you know into a database, but it is "never" (emphasis mine) possible to transfer the knowledge?

On where he infers indirectly to managerial decisions by saying "how managers need to understand things before they make decisions (!)" The (!) concerns me. How then do managers make decisions without 'understanding' things?

Nonetheless his is an exciting critical analysis from the other 'side of the coin'. But my view is that, like any new initiatives where criticism is healthy, with proper KM efforts, organizations can make great leaps towards achieving their stated goals or objectives - they can even prosper beyond their wildest imaginations.

Would KM make sense in Kenya?

Being a Kenyan and concerned about its development, I have been wracking my brain to see how this KM concept can appeal enmasse to Kenyan organizations in particular, and the country in general. I am not implying that it is not there in organizations, nor will it be a panacea to our economic and social problems. I feel that if well interpreted, accepted and harnessed, it can be one of the ways used to boost economic performance - we have the pool of knowledgeable assets.

But I have the lingering fear that it will not be taken seriously, just as recent experiences show. We Kenyans (please pardon my use of 'We') have this tendency of dismissing thoughts or conceptions, which might be otherwise useful. Perhaps this stems from the negative effects of what we call 'outside-prescriptions' as opposed to 'home-grown solutions' of organizations such as the World Bank and IMF's 'structural adjustment programs'. In the same vein falls accusations to NGOs as 'talking-shops' for holding seminars, workshops etc. in 'posh hotels' discussing such 'weird' subjects as 'capacity building', 'gender-mainstreaming', 'jump starting the economy', 'marginalized groups' etc. which have no bearing on the 'common man' - as if there is 'uncommon man'. Buoyed by this NGO-speak and feeling to contribute something, I once wrote an article based on my undergraduate days at Kenyatta University, where, when it wanted to terminate a student's studies, it would couch it in a soft language such as '..that you were "unteachable" and the university "advices" you to "discontinue" your studies', but it didn't make it to the press.

I used to attend a number of such workshops and seminars organized by 'solution providers' on such topics as 'business process outsourcing', 'virtual networks', deploying intelligent 'state-of-the-art' solutions to 'vertical' and 'horizontal' markets, but on returning back to my workplace and trying to share what was discussed, the discussions did not generate necessary enthusiasm and died soon after. Just wondering how one who has attended a workshop on 'knowledge management' would be received.

I once asked the late University of Nairobi sociology lecturer Prof. Osaga Odak, at lunchtime in a restaurant, why we have this aversion to meaningful intellectual debates. His view was that we are so 'hypnotized' by the the seeming less political 'platitudes' - in fact equating us Kenyans to the 'cheering crowd'. I seemed to concur with him given that one can easily observe how we Kenyans are obsessed with politics by the enormous discussions that go on in public places, homes, drinking joints etc.

Even though this might seem to be a digression from this post on KM, I brought it up with the hypothesis that perhaps, political platforms might be the right channel to sell this concept of KM to a society that might otherwise consider it as one of those other 'high-sounding' phrases that have been 'parroted' around until 'cows come home'. On a more humorous note, let us assume that serious efforts are undertaken to 'raise awareness' on KM in public parlances or other fora - because organizations usually react to public sentiments. Suppose the KM catches the fancy of Kenyans. Instead of it being taken seriously, in the true Kenyan spirit, it might end up landing on children or public transport vehicle names. I wouldn't be surprised to see a newly born child named 'Knowledge Management Oluoch'.

References

Capozzi, M.(2007),"Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology", First Monday, Vol.12 No.6, June 2007. Available at http://outreach.lib.uic.edu/www/issues/issue12_6/capozzi Accessed [08/02/2009]

CIO.com, "Knowledge Management Definition and Solutions". Available at http://www.cio.com/article/40343/Knowledge_Management_Definition_and_Solutions, [2009, 28/01/2009]

Sensky, T. (2002) "Advances in Psychiatric Treatment", The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Vol.8, pp.387–395. Available at http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/387. Accessed [08/02/2009]

Wiig, K.(1997),"Knowledge Management:An Introduction and Perspective", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.1 No.1, pp.6-14

Wilson T.(2002), "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'", Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144. [Available at http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html. Accessed [06/02/2009]

YourDictionary.com, "Definition of Knowledge Management". Available at http://www.yourdictionary.com/knowledge-management, [2009, 28/01/2009]

Depiction of terms

In our class last week (22/01/2009), the groups were asked to diagramatically depict the terms organization (rectangular), CoP (circle), individual (dot), network (asterisk), team (hexagon with nodes), one way communication (single line) and two way communication (double lines). Here are pictorials of what different groups produced:

In my view, this is a classic way of demonstrating how the same thing is viewed differently by others.

Community of Practice

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people, who interact and share knowledge of mutual interest to each member in an informal way. Each member participates voluntarily and freely shares his understanding and skills about the particular subject of interest, and also gets to learn from the other members' experiences.

The concept of CoP is not something new. It has been practised since olden times. For instance, in traditional African societies, old men well versed in herbal medicine used to meet, share and learn from each other how different twigs, leaves, roots etc. were used to treat different diseases. In this way, this kind of tacit knowledge was then retained, refined and passed on to future generations.

It was anthropologist Jean Leave and thought leader Etienne Wenger who first coined this term while studying apprenticeship as a learning model. According to (Wenger 1998), a CoP is defined by three dimensions:

1. What it is - joint enterprise as understood and negotiated by its members
2. Function - mutual engagement bind members together into social entity
3. What it achieves - shared pool of communal resources (routines, styles, vocabulary etc) that members have developed over time

He further argues that what the community practices is reflected by things that matter as interpreted by the members' own understanding of what is important. In a sense, CoPs are "self-organising systems".

Importance of CoPs in organizational context

We first need to note that there are subtle differences between organizations and CoPs. Organizations have a formal structure, CoPs are more informal. CoPs can exist within or outside the organization's boundaries, but in one way or the other, can have significant influence on an organization's activities. When existing inside an organization boundary, they should not be confused with internal structures such as functional units or project teams. If outside, they should not be confused with networks. (Wenger 1998) shows how a CoP is different from:

• Business or functional unit. CoP members develop among themselves an understanding of what their practice is all about. Thus the boundaries of a CoP are more flexible than those of organizational unit. The flexibility the CoP offers allows members to participate in different ways and varying degrees, creating many opportunities of learning.
• A team. CoP is defined by knowledge valuable to its members, a team by a particular task or project to be undertaken within a certain deadline. CoPs take time to come into being, and may live longer than a team that disbands after the project is accomplished.
• A network. While a network is about relationships, a CoP has an identity as a community with a purpose - shared practice of collective learning.

Having said that, in an increasing competitive environment, organizations have recognized knowledge as a crucial factor in attaining a competitive edge. They are constantly looking for ways and means to harness and utilize this key resource in order to attain their overall objectives. Effective organizations have come to the realization that indeed, the concept of CoP is one vehicle that can be used to achieve this goal of creating, sharing and reusing knowledge, which in turn boosts performance.

To get an insight of how an organization's performance can be improved, let us take two examples. A recent detailed research to establish the relationship between CoPs and performance was carried out by (Schenkel and Teigland, 2008) on a multi-billion dollar construction project involving construction of a bridge linking Sweden and Denmark by Sundlink Contractors. Four CoPs in Caisson, Piershaft, High Bridge Deck/Girder and Pylon sections were studied. The results showed how the first three CoPs "exhibited improved performance" as a result of the CoPs ability to create and share the collective memory through informal face to face interactions. In Pylon section where the fourth CoP was and where there was reduced face to face interactions as a result of some CoP members being moved to the sea, they found that there was a "negative impact on the structural dimensions and cognitive processes" when compared to the other first three CoPs - implying that the split of the CoP degraded performance.

Another study conducted by (Lesser and Storck, 2001) on seven organizations where CoPs were acknowledged to create value, linked four broad business performance areas that were influenced by the CoPs. The organizations studied were two multinational lending institutions, one manufacturing company, a pharmaceutical firm, a software development company, a speciality chemical company and a telecom company. The four broad business performance areas were:

1. Decreasing the learning curve of new employees
2. Responding more rapidly to customer needs and inquiries
3. Reducing rework and preventing "reinvention of the wheel"
4. Spawning new ideas for products and services

This comprehensive study demonstrated how the CoPs, irrespective of the industry where their organization belonged, greatly influenced some of the factors that are critical to an organization's success.

Because shared knowledge and practices are central themes in CoPs, effective organizations should nurture and support CoPs by recognizing the valuable role they play in an organization's success.

Is a CoP just another buzzword?

Not really. From my personal viewpoint, I concur with this term of CoP, which is a cut above the rest of other terms like networks, clubs, merry-go-rounds etc. Looking back, the SDA church choir that I used to see every Tuesdays and Thursdays evenings in downtown Nairobi on my way from work is, I belief, a good example of a CoP. The informal manner in which they practised and honed their hymns and songs, and the willingness shown by each member, contributed greatly to the nice renditions sang during the church's Sabbath School.

I benefited greatly from a CoP I participated (even though I wasn't consciously aware that it was a CoP). We had great interest in programming skills with Borland Delphi - an object oriented programming and development platform. I learned quite a lot from my colleagues (especially the stepping-through process of debugging some nagging lines of code which had syntax and logic errors that were difficult to detect on my own). The clues gained helped me in the development and implementation of a comprehensive custom built application for the service and workshop departments while working at Car and General (K) Ltd.

References:

Lesser E., Storck J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4. Available at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/lesser.html. Accessed on[06/02/2009]

Schenkel, A., Teigland, R.(2008), "Improved organizational performance through communities of practice", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.106-118

Wenger, E.(1998). Communities of practice:Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, June 1998. Available at http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml. Accessed on [22/01/2009]

Knowledge - what is it?
In an attempt to explain this concept of knowledge, we need first to go back and look at the very fundamentals that act as building blocks. Two of these fundamentals are data and information. Without context, and in very simple terms, data is an abstract item/thing. It doesn't have meaning, unless associated with a certain context. The contexts can be varied and looked at from different angles. Take for instance the number 2. On its own, its is meaningless - 2 what? elephants? roads? countries?. At a first glance, a mathematician, may look at it as an even number - or the only number which is both odd and even. This is just maybe. At this point in time, it can then be simply looked at as a number. It is in raw form and therefore a piece of data. But suppose we bring in another 2 and add it to the first 2 to give us 4. You see there is a little bit of meaning we have gained i.e. 2+2=4. We have done a bit of manipulation of the two 2's to give 4. The number 4 on its own is meaningless, but 4 derived from adding 2 to another 2 can be seen to have a little bit more meaning. This little bit of meaning thus begins to build what can be termed as information. Thus simply defined, information can be seen as a collection of data items manipulated or organised to produce meaning.