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.