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.
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.
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.
