Knowledge management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to

identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and
experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or
practice.

An established discipline since 1991 (see Nonaka 1991), KM includes courses taught in the fields of business
administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences(Alavi & Leidner 1999).
More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include information and
media, computer science, public health, and public policy.

Many large companies and non-profit organizations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a

part of their 'business strategy', 'information technology', or 'human resource management' departments
(Addicott, McGivern & Ferlie 2006). Several consulting companies also exist that provide strategy and advice
regarding KM to these organizations.

Knowledge Management efforts typically focus on organizational objectives such as

improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration
and continuous improvement of the organization. KM efforts overlap with organizational learning, and may be
distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus
on encouraging the sharing of knowledge. KM efforts can help individuals and groups to share valuable
organizational insights, to reduce redundant work, to avoid reinventing the wheel per se, to reduce training time
for new employees, to retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organization, and to adapt to
changing environments and markets (McAdam & McCreedy 2000) (Thompson & Walsham 2004).

Contents
 [hide]

1 History

2 Research

o 2.1 Dimension

o 2.2 Strategies

o 2.3 Motivation

o 2.4 Technolog
 ies

o 2.5 Knowledg

e managers

3 See also

4 References

o 4.1 Notes

5 External links

[edit]History

KM efforts have a short history, to include on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums,

corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring programs. More recently, with increased use of
computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such as knowledge
bases, expert systems, knowledge repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and computer
supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts.[1]

In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced which refers to the management of
knowledge at the individual level (Wright 2005).

In terms of the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognized the importance of knowledge
management dimensions of strategy, process, and measurement (Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham 2002).
Key lessons learned included: people, and the cultures that influence their behaviors, are the single most
critical resource for successful knowledge creation, dissemination, and application; cognitive, social, and
organizational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and
measurement, benchmarking, and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive
cultural change. In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and
organizations if they are purposeful, concrete, and action-oriented.

More recently with the advent of the Web 2.0, the concept of Knowledge Management has evolved towards a
vision more based on people participation and emergence. This line of evolution is termedEnterprise
2.0 (McAfee 2006). However, there is an ongoing debate and discussions (Lakhani & McAfee 2007) as to
whether Enterprise 2.0 is just a fad that does not bring anything new or useful or whether it is, indeed, the
future of knowledge management (Davenport 2008).

[edit]Research

KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the earlier 1990s. It was initially supported solely by practitioners, when
Scandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the world’s first Chief Knowledge Officer(CKO). Hubert Saint-Onge
(formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating various sides of KM long before that. The objective of CKOs
is to manage and maximize the intangible assets of their organizations. Gradually, CKOs became interested in
not only practical but also theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was formed. The KM ideas
taken up by academics, such asIkujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi
University), Thomas H. Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York University). In 2001, Thomas
A. Stewart, former editor at FORTUNE Magazine and subsequently the editor of Harvard Business Review,
published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual capital of organizations. Since its
establishment, the KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity. First, there is a trend
towards higher cooperation among academics; particularly, there has been a drop in single-authored
publications. Second, the role of practitioners has changed. Their contribution to academic research has been
dramatically declining from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 (Serenko et al. 2010).

A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exists with no unanimous agreement; approaches vary by
author and school. As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and
practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:

 Techno-centric with a focus on technology, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing and

creation.

 Organizational with a focus on how an organization can be designed to facilitate knowledge

processes best.

 Ecological with a focus on the interaction of people, identity, knowledge, and environmental factors as

a complex adaptive system akin to a natural ecosystem.

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include People,

Processes, Technology (or) Culture, Structure, Technology, depending on the specific perspective (Spender &
Scherer 2007). Different KM schools of thought include various lenses through which KM can be viewed and
explained, to include:

 community of practice (Wenger, McDermott & Synder 2001)[2]

 social network analysis[3]

 intellectual capital (Bontis & Choo 2002)[4]

 information theory[5] (McInerney 2002)

 complexity science[6][7]

 constructivism[8] (Nanjappa & Grant 2003)

The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned (Ferguson 2005) with action
research suggested as having more relevance (Andriessen 2004) and the need to translate the findings
presented in academic journals to a practice (Booker, Bontis & Serenko 2008).
[edit]Dimensions

Different frameworks for distinguishing between knowledge exist. One proposed framework for categorizing
the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge
represents internalized knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as how he or she
accomplishes particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge
that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.
[9]
 (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalized tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge in order to share it, but the same effort must also permit individuals to internalize and make
personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort. Subsequent research into KM
suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification
and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory. Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it
must be translated into information (i.e.,symbols outside of our heads) (Serenko & Bontis 2004). Later on,
Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model (SECI for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) which
considers a spiraling knowledge process interaction between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka
& Takeuchi 1995). In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become
explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalized' into implicit knowledge. More recently, together
with Georg von Krogh, Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge
conversion forwards (Nonaka & von Krogh 2009).

A second proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between embedded
knowledge of a system outside of a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge
embedded into its design) and embodied knowledge representing a learned capability of a human
body’s nervous and endocrine systems (Sensky 2002).

A third proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between the
exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established
knowledge" within a group, organization, or community. Collaborative environments such as communities of
practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer. [10]

[edit]Strategies

Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities. Different
organizations have tried various knowledge capture incentives, including making content submission
mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans. Considerable controversy exists
over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has emerged.
One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy). In such an instance, individuals
strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as adatabase, as well as
retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository. [11] This is also commonly
known as the Codification approach to KM.

Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular
subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy). In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide their insights to
the particular person or people needing this (Snowden 2002). This is also commonly known as the
Personalization approach to KM.

Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include:

 rewards (as a means of motivating for knowledge sharing)

 storytelling (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge)

 cross-project learning

 after action reviews

 knowledge mapping (a map of knowledge repositories within a company accessible by all)

 communities of practice

 expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the experts)

 best practice transfer

 knowledge fairs

 competence management (systematic evaluation and planning of competences of individual

organization members)

 proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can be either conducive or obstructive to
knowledge sharing)

 master-apprentice relationship

 collaborative technologies (groupware, etc.)

 knowledge repositories (databases, bookmarking engines, etc.)

 measuring and reporting intellectual capital (a way of making explicit knowledge for companies)

 knowledge brokers (some organizational members take on responsibility for a specific "field" and act
as first reference on whom to talk about a specific subject)

 social software (wikis, social bookmarking, blogs, etc.)

[edit]Motivations

A number of claims exist as to the motivations leading organizations to undertake a KM effort. [12] Typical

considerations driving a KM effort include:
 Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision
of products and services

 Achieving shorter new product development cycles

 Facilitating and managing innovation and organizational learning

 Leveraging the expertise of people across the organization

 Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals

 Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights

and ideas appropriate to their work

 Solving intractable or wicked problems

 Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-
how possessed by key individuals)

Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in this field may
hopefully help to answer this question, as well as create consensus on what elements of KM help determine
the success or failure of such efforts (Wilson 2002).[13]

[edit]Technologies

Early KM technologies included online corporate yellow pages as expertise locators

and document management systems. Combined with the early development of collaborative technologies (in
particular Lotus Notes), KM technologies expanded in the mid-1990s. Subsequent KM efforts
leveraged semantic technologies for search and retrieval and the development of e-learning tools
forcommunities of practice[14] (Capozzi 2007).

More recently, development of social computing tools (such as bookmarks, blogs, and wikis) have allowed
more unstructured, self-governing or ecosystem approaches to the transfer, capture and creation of knowledge,
including the development of new forms of communities, networks, or matrixed organizations. However such
tools for the most part are still based on text and code, and thus represent explicit knowledge transfer. These
tools face challenges in distilling meaningful re-usable knowledge and ensuring that their content is
transmissible through diverse channels[15](Andrus 2005).

Software tools in knowledge management are a collection of technologies and are not necessarily acquired as
a single software solution. Furthermore, these knowledge management software tools have the advantage of
using the organization existing information technology infrastructure. Organizations and business decision
makers spend a great deal of resources and make significant investments in the latest technology, systems
and infrastructure to support knowledge management. It is imperative that these investments are validated
properly, made wisely and that the most appropriate technologies and software tools are selected or combined
to facilitate knowledge management.
Knowledge management has also become a cornerstone in emerging business strategies such as Service
Lifecycle Management (SLM) with companies increasingly turning to software vendors to enhance their
efficiency in industries including, but not limited to, the aviation industry. [16]

[edit]Knowledge managers
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (December 2009)

"Knowledge manager" is a role and designation that has gained popularity over the past decade. The role has
evolved drastically from that of one involving the creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories to one
that involves influencing the culture of an organization toward improved knowledge sharing, reuse, learning,
collaboration and innovation. Knowledge management functions are associated with different departments in
different organizations. It may be combined with Quality, Sales, HR, Innovation, Operations etc. and is likely to
be determined by the KM motivation of that particular organization.

Knowledge managers have varied backgrounds ranging from Information Sciences to Business Management.
An effective knowledge manager is likely to be someone who has a versatile skills portfolio and is comfortable
with the concepts of organizational behavior/culture, processes, branding & marketing and collaborative te