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).