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.