Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management Knowledge management (KM) is the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organizational knowledge. It refers to a multi-disciplinary approach to achieving organizational objectives by making the best use of knowledge. "Knowledge management is the process of capturing, distributing, and effectively using knowledge." This definition has the virtue of being simple, stark, and to the point.  A few years later, the Gartner Group created another second definition of KM, which is perhaps the most frequently cited one (Duhon, 1998): "Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets. These assets may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously un-captured expertise and experience in individual workers." Both definitions share a very organizational, a very corporate orientation. KM, historically at least, is primarily about managing the knowledge of and in organizations. The operational origin of KM, as the term is understood today, arose within the consulting community and from there the principles of KM were rather rapidly spread by the consulting organizations to other disciplines. The consulting firms quickly realized the potential of the Intranet flavor of the Internet for linking together their own geographically dispersed and knowledge-based organizations. Once having gained expertise in how to take advantage of intranets to connect across their organizations and to share and manage information and knowledge, they then understood that the expertise they had gained was a product that could be sold to other organizations. A new product of course needed a name, and the name chosen, or at least arrived at, was Knowledge Management. The timing was propitious, as the enthusiasm for intellectual capital in the 1980s, had primed the pump for the recognition of information and knowledge as essential assets for any organization. Perhaps the most central thrust in KM is to capture and make available, so it can be used by others in the organization, the information and knowledge that is in people's heads as it were, and that has never been explicitly set down. What is still probably the best graphic to try to set forth what KM is constituted of, is the graphic developed by IBM for the use of their KM consultants, based on the distinction between collecting stuff (content) and connecting people, presented here with minor modifications (the marvelous C, E, and H mnemonics are entirely IBM's)   COLLECTING (STUFF) & CODIFICATION CONNECTING (PEOPLE) & PERSONALIZATION DIRECTED INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE SEARCH EXPLOIT Databases, external & internal Content Architecture Information Service Support (training required) data mining best practices / lessons learned/after action analysis (HARVEST) community & learning directories, "yellow pages" (expertise locators) findings & facilitating tools, groupware response teams (HARNESS) SERENDIPITY & BROWSING EXPLORE Cultural support current awareness profiles and databases selection of items for alerting purposes / push data mining best practices (HUNTING) Cultural support spaces - libraries & lounges (literal & virtual), cultural support, groupware travel & meeting attendance (HYPOTHESIZE) From: Tom Short, Senior consultant, Knowledge Management, IBM Global Services Another way to view and define KM is to describe KM as the movement to replicate the information environment known to be conducive to successful R&D—rich, deep, and open communication and information access—and deploy it broadly across the firm. It is almost trite now to observe that we are in the post-industrial information age and that an increasingly large proportion of the working population consists of information workers. The role of the researcher, considered the quintessential information worker, has been studied in depth with a focus on identifying environmental aspects that lead to successful research (Koenig, 1990, 1992), and the strongest relationship by far is with information and knowledge access and communication. It is quite logical then to attempt to apply those same successful environmental aspects to knowledge workers at large, and that is what in fact KM attempts to do. Explicit, Implicit and Tacit Knowledge In the KM literature, knowledge is most commonly categorized as either explicit or tacit (that which is in people's heads). This characterization is however rather too simple, but a more important point, and a criticism, is that it is misleading. A much more nuanced and useful characterization is to describe knowledge as explicit, implicit, and tacit. Explicit: information or knowledge that is set out in tangible form. Implicit: information or knowledge that is not set out in tangible form but could be made explicit. Tacit: information or knowledge that one would have extreme difficulty operationally setting out in tangible form. Article1: Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning William R. King Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh Knowledge Management in Organizations: KM processes directly improve organizational processes, such as innovation, collaborative decision-making, and individual and collective learning. These improved organizational processes produce intermediate outcomes such as better decisions, organizational behaviors, products, services and relationships. These, in turn, lead to improved organizational performance. KM Strategies Most organizations focus primarily on one or the other of two broadly defined KM strategies – “codification” or “personalization” (Hansen et al., 1999) . Codification, is primarily implemented in the form of electronic document systems that codify and store knowledge and permit its easy dissemination and re-use. This strategy is based on “re-use economics” – invest once in creating or acquiring a knowledge asset and re-use it many times. Personalization, on the other hand, focuses on developing networks to facilitate people-to people knowledge transfer and sharing. It is based on “expert economics” – channeling individual expertise to others with less expertise who may employ it to further the organization’s goals. Earl (2001) has described various KM strategies, or “schools of thought” at a more detailed level. He developed these empirically through observation in numerous companies. They are listed below. Codification Sub-Strategies – Earl’s codification-oriented sub-strategies are: 1. Systems (creating and refining knowledge repositories and on motivating people to provide content) 2. Process (developing and using repeatable processes that are supported with knowledge from previously conducted processes) 3. Commercial (the management of intellectual property such as patents, trademarks, etc.) 4. Strategic (the development of “knowledge capabilities” that can form the foundation of competitive strategy) Personalization Sub-Strategies – Earl’s personalization-oriented sub-strategies are: 5. Cartographic (creating knowledge “maps” or directories and networks to connect people) 6. Organizational (providing groupware and intranets to facilitate communities of practice) 7. Social (spatial) (socialization as a means of knowledge creation and exchange; emphasizes the providing of physical “places” to facilitate discussions) While some organizations focus on only one of these strategies or sub-strategies, many use a combination of strategies that suits their needs. The Future of KM King et al. (2002) empirically identified a number of “KM issues” through a Delphi study of Chief Knowledge Officers. The resolution of these issues represents a forecast of how KM will be different in the future. The top 10 issues were: − How to use KM to provide strategic advantage − How to obtain top management support for KM − How to maintain the currency of organizational knowledge − How to motivate individuals to contribute their knowledge to a KM system − How to identify the organizational knowledge that should be captured in KM systems – How to assess the financial costs and benefits of KM − How to verify the efficacy, legitimacy, and relevance of knowledge contributed to a KM system − How best to design and develop a KM says.284 − How to sustain progress in the organization − How to ensure knowledge security If all, or most, of these issues are resolved as KM matures, the future of KM will be largely determined by the manners in which they are resolved. Conclusion Knowledge management is a set of relatively new organizational activities that are aimed at improving knowledge, knowledge-related practices, organizational behaviors and decisions and organizational performance. KM focuses on knowledge processes – knowledge creation, acquisition, refinement, storage, transfer, sharing and utilization. These processes support organizational processes involving innovation, individual learning, collective learning and collaborative decision making. The “intermediate outcomes” of KM are improved organizational behaviors, decisions, products, services, processes and relationships that enable the organization to improve its overall performance. References Cross, R., and L. Baird. (2000). “Technology is not enough: Improving performance by building organizational memory,” Sloan Management Review, 41(3): 69–79. Davenport, T.H., and L. Prusak. 2000. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dixon, N.M. 1994. The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively . New York: McGraw-Hill. Earl, M. 2001. Knowledge management strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): 215–223. Easter by-Smith, M., and M. Lyles. 2003. The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management . Oxford: Blackwell. Article 2: Knowledge Managers: Who They Are and What They Do December 2001 James D. McKeen and D. Sandy Staples Queen's School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada K7L 3N6 Introduction The emergence of the knowledge management function all started with Peter Drucker's now famous quote in The Post Capitalist Society (1993) "The basic economic resource - the means of production - is no longer capital, nor natural resources, nor labor. It is and will be knowledge". With such an endorsement and the instant legitimization that followed, organizations began the process of learning how to "manage" this new resource. Organizations higher on the information-intensive scale moved quickly. Positions were fashioned, systems were implemented, and metrics were created as titles such as "knowledge manager" began to dot the organizational panoply. With characteristic adherence to the adage "anything that can't be measured can't be managed", organizations began the search for value directly attributable to knowledge. Armed with oft-repeated success stories and evangelical exuberance, knowledge managers accepted the challenge articulated by senior management. Literature Review We had two main objectives for our study. First, we wanted to develop a profile of knowledge managers. Second, we wanted to understand what activities they were working on in their organization. In order to help us meet our objectives, we looked for previous similar studies that had done similar things. We briefly review the studies we found below and describe how our study relates to and adds to the existing body of knowledge. Seven main challenges were identified: 1. Set knowledge management strategic priorities, 2. Establish a knowledge database of best practices, 3. Gain commitment of senior executives to support a learning environment, 4. Teach information seekers how to ask better and smarter questions of their intelligent resources, 5. Put in place a process for managing intellectual assets, 6. Obtain customer satisfaction information in near real-time, and 7. Globalize knowledge management. Methodology A questionnaire was developed to collect data to answer our research questions. A variety of question types were used varying from open-ended questions to Likert-type scales. There were six sections in the questionnaire, roughly corresponding to the research questions. The sections gathering information about knowledge management activities, background on the knowledge management position, future knowledge management directions, information on the company, respondent’s views of their job, and demographics about the respondent. To assess views about the respondent’s job, we asked questions designed to measure job satisfaction, organizational commitment, ability to cope, and job stress. These constructs were measured with established instruments. The Sample In order to reach knowledge managers, we employed two strategies. First, the organizers of the Braintrust International 2001 conference helped us by sending notices to their participant list asking them to participate in the study. Braintrust is a practitioner-driven event that was developed by and for knowledge management practitioners so it was well suited to our goal of reaching knowledge managers. Potential respondents were offered two things in return for participation. In addition to being given a summary of the findings, the preliminary results were presented at the Braintrust International 2001 conference, held in San Francisco in February 2001. Our second strategy was to contact and invite participation from as many knowledge managers as we knew personally. Again, participants were offered a summary of the findings in return for participation. Organizational KM Activities, Challenges and Capabilities Summary Our study has taken a snapshot of knowledge managers via a self-reported questionnaire. Information on the backgrounds, activities, and views of knowledge managers has been used to help us understand these pioneers. They undoubtedly play key roles in their organizations’ quest for competitive advantage from knowledge. We hope our study is a starting point to help practitioners and researchers understand the practice of knowledge managers and, more importantly, the potential of the knowledge manager role in organizations. References Capshaw, S., "Spotlight on Knowledge Leadership: Where's the CKO?" Inform, July, 1999, 20-21. Cole-Gomolski, B., "Knowledge 'Czars' Fall From Grace," ComputerWorld, 33, 1, January 4, 1999a, 1-13. Cole-Gomolski, B., "Knowledge Managers Need Business Savy," ComputerWorld, January 25, 1999b, 40. Article 3: Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline Rooted in a Long History Karl M. Wiig Introduction Knowledge, what it is, what it means, and its roles for work and spiritual life has a long history. The abstract considerations and speculations by philosophers and religious thinkers have been of particular significance. In addition, the emphasis on knowledge has always had a practical work related and secular side. It is this aspect we pursue in this chapter. Knowledge in the workplace–the ability of people and organizations to understand and act effectively–has regularly been managed by managers, coworkers, and proactive individuals. Those responsible for survival in competitive environments always have worked to build the best possible knowledge within their area of responsibility. “The goal of Knowledge Management is to build and exploit intellectual capital Effectively and gainfully.” Comprehensive Knowledge Management Strategy Focus Areas. Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline Rooted in a Long History. Globalization of business and international Competition Sophisticated customers. Sophisticated competitors. Sophisticated Suppliers. Understanding of human cognitive functions. Internal Driving Forces Bottlenecks in enterprise effectiveness. Increased technological capabilities. Ongoing Developments Many developments are underway that will affect KM further and some of these include: Economics of Ideas. Innovations and new, path-breaking ideas have brought about knowledge driven economic changes of societal significance. Information Management and Technology. Information-related practices and capabilities are transforming the way business is conducted. Cognitive Science. Our understanding of how people function has direct impact for how we manage knowledge. Shifts in Bottlenecks. Understanding best practices and others experiences provide information about potential candidates for streamlining operations. Customization Requirements for Sophisticated Customers. Great opportunities are available by satisfying unique customer demands on reasonable terms. Sophisticated Competitors. Threats require agile behaviors and rapid learning to remain viable. Concluding Perspectives KM will continue to evolve and draw upon support from many theoretical and methodological areas. For instance, cognitive sciences will increase understanding of decision making, cognitive support needed for work, effective learning, and skills transfer processes. Research on the nature of intellectual work will explicate how different kinds of knowledge is used, should be possessed, and accessed. Management sciences will provide methods for managing IC renewal, priorities, and investments. AI and advanced information technology will increase abilities to supplant and support complex work tasks. New directions such as “Economics of Ideas,” “Economics of Chance,” and Chaos Theory will provide new perspectives and new guidelines for effective management in the knowledge society. New models for Theory of the Firm will elucidate new tactical values, principles, and judgments. References Austin, Robert D. (1996) Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations. New York: Dorset House. Bechara, Antoine; Damasio, Hanna; Tranel, Daniel; & Damasio, Antonio R. (1997) “Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy.” SCIENCE, 275, 1293-5. Boulding, Kenneth E (1966) “The Economics of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Economics.” American Economic Review, May, 1-13. Cannon-Bowers, Janis A. & Salas, Eduardo (1998). “Team Performance and Training in Complex Environments: Recent Findings from Applied Research.” Current Directions in Psychological Research, March 1999, pp. 83-87. Chandrasekaran, B.; Josephson, John R.; & Benjamins, V. Richard (1999). “What Are Ontologies,and Why Do We Need Tem?.” IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14, 1, pp. 20-26. Cleveland, Harlan (1985) Article 4: Knowledge Management in Value Creation Networks: Establishing a New Business Model through the Role of a Knowledge-Intermediary Krenz, P.a*; Basmer, S. a; Buxbaum-Conradi, S. a; Redlich, T. a; Wulfsberg, J.-P. a aHelmut-Schmidt-Universität, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany Introduction The success and competitive ability of value creation networks depend on the ‘productive knowledge’ that is available during the inter-organizational value creation processes. Productive knowledge refers to the cognitive ability of transferring knowledge into actions (or using knowledge appropriately in a specific context). The single actors within a network have only a limited capacity to accumulate productive knowledge due to the complexity and diversity of knowledge stock. Thus, the single actor (or enterprise) focuses on his core competencies and outsources secondary and tertiary business processes. Knowledge, which has been created in the company over years and decades, is distributed to autonomous partners and becomes in transparent and often not directly accessible. This results in a spatial distribution of knowledge carriers and value creation processes. Knowledge Management within the regional aeronautical cluster Hamburg Aviation The actors of the aeronautical cluster in Hamburg (Hamburg Aviation) are currently facing that exact challenges. The exceptional density of factors of production within the cluster offers great potentials for collaborative problem-solving and innovation. Although cluster initiatives are established to actually meet the growing complexity of inter-organizational value creation, the inter-organizational cooperation activities are assessed as insufficient by many of the aeronautical clusters’ actors. Even though the potentials of an efficient management of the common resource ‘knowledge’ [12] are recognized, there seems to be a lack of ability to put them into practice. Schematic illustration of the interdependencies between different areas of influence, KM tasks and GM tasks Requirements for inter-organizational KM Based on the exposed premises, a systemic analysis for a deeper analytical understanding of the interdependencies between the single elements of the system Hamburg Aviation is required. This analysis serves as a fundament for the subsequent deriving procedure of the KMS. In a first step, the effects of context-specific impact factors (e.g. level of trust, power asymmetries along the value chain) on the realization of the KM tasks as well as the realization of the general management tasks (GM tasks) in the course of cooperation are detected . Major tasks of the KMS are composed of the identification, distribution, development and application of knowledge]. The organization and regulation of the system (GM tasks) can be divided into the domains of operational management (coordination of the value creation processes), strategic management (securing the changeability) and normative management (ensuring cohesion). Conclusion and Outlook Knowledge Management has to be considered against the backdrop of changing paradigms of value creation - from the traditional firm in the industrial era to mass collaboration in a globalized networked world - focusing on its integrative function. As we have pointed out in the previous sections, KM in value creation networks needs to regulate the knowledge flows in a way that ensures the viability as well as the adaptability/ changeability of the VCN. Therefore, the design of the value creation artifact, its system structure and the related processes as well as their interdependencies have to be taken into account. Following such an integrative systemic approach, one has to analyze the interweaving of GM and KM objectives. Existing theories and models according KM are not recognizing the presented holistic view and the embedding of KM inside the overall network management. In contrast to other understandings of the role of a broker respective intermediary the understanding of the presented knowledge intermediary differs. In contrast to a knowledge broker the central task of a knowledge intermediary is not to support the realization of the knowledge tasks. He does not transfer knowledge between the different actors of the network or identifies the knowledge resources within the network. Instead the intermediary designs value creation structures, processes and the artifact in cooperation with the network actors. The relevant objective is to ensure a symbiosis between tasks of the knowledge management and tasks of the general management. Concluding, knowledge management represents not only an add-on in management activities in a network, but rather it is grounded in the value creation structures, processes and the artifact. This holistic perspective ensures its embedding in the overall network management. References [1] Hidalgo C, Hausmann R. The building blocks of economic complexity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. June 30, 2009;106/26:10570–10575. [2] Ammar-Khodja S, Bernard A. An Overview on Knowledge Management. In: Bernard A, Tichkiewitch S, editors. Methods and Tools for Effective Knowledge Life-Cycle-Management. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 3-21. [3] Bullinger HJ, Ilg R. Living and working in a networked world: ten trends. In: The practical real-time enterprise. Facts and Perspectives. Berlin: Springer; 2005. p. 497-507. [4] Schuh G, Gottschalk S. Production engineering for selforganizing complex systems. Prod Eng Res Dev 2008;2:431–435. [5] Prahalad CK, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. IEEE Engineering Management Review 1992;20/3:5-14. [6] Picot A, Reichwald R, Wigand R. Information, Organization and Management. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. [7] Schuh G, Arnoscht J, Völker, M. Product Design Leverage on then Changeability of Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 2012;3:305–310. [8] Redlich T, Wulfsberg JP, Bruhns FL. Open production: scientific foundation for co-creative product realization. Prod Eng Res Devel 2011;5/2:127-139. [9] Wiendahl HP et al. Changeable Manufacturing. Classification – Design – Operation. Annals of the CIRP 2007;56/2:783-809. [10] ElMaraghy HA, ElMaraghy WH. Variety, Complexity and Value Creation. In: Zaeh MF, editor. Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014, p. 1-7. Article 5: Knowledge Management for The Age of Mobile, Social and Multichannel Customer Experiences December 2011 D. Sandy Staples Queen's School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada K7L 3N6 Introduction The emergence of the knowledge management function all started with Peter Drucker's now famous quote in The Post Capitalist Society (1993) "The basic economic resource - the means of production - is no longer capital, nor natural resources, nor labor. It is and will be knowledge". With such an endorsement and the instant legitimization that followed, organizations began the process of learning how to "manage" this new resource. Organizations higher on the information-intensive scale moved quickly. Positions were fashioned, systems were implemented, and metrics were created as titles such as "knowledge manager" began to dot the organizational panoply. With characteristic adherence to the adage "anything that can't be measured can't be managed", organizations began the search for value directly attributable to knowledge. Armed with oft-repeated success stories and evangelical exuberance, knowledge managers accepted the challenge articulated by senior management. Literature Review We had two main objectives for our study. First, we wanted to develop a profile of knowledge managers. Second, we wanted to understand what activities they were working on in their organization. In order to help us meet our objectives, we looked for previous similar studies that had done similar things. We briefly review the studies we found below and describe how our study relates to and adds to the existing body of knowledge. Seven main challenges were identified: 1. Set knowledge management strategic priorities, 2. Establish a knowledge database of best practices, 3. Gain commitment of senior executives to support a learning environment, 5. Put in place a process for managing intellectual assets, 6. Obtain customer satisfaction information in near real-time, and 7. Globalize knowledge management. Methodology A questionnaire was developed to collect data to answer our research questions. A variety of question types were used varying from open-ended questions to Likert-type scales. There were six sections in the questionnaire, roughly corresponding to the research questions. The sections gathering information about knowledge management activities, background on the knowledge management position, future knowledge management directions, information on the company, respondent’s views of their job, and demographics about the respondent. To assess views about the respondent’s job, we asked questions designed to measure job satisfaction, organizational commitment, ability to cope, and job stress. These constructs were measured with established instruments. The Sample In order to reach knowledge managers, we employed two strategies. First, the organizers of the Braintrust International 2011 conference helped us by sending notices to their participant list asking them to participate in the study. Braintrust is a practitioner-driven event that was developed by and for knowledge management practitioners so it was well suited to our goal of reaching knowledge managers. Potential respondents were offered two things in return for participation. In addition to being given a summary of the findings, the preliminary results were presented at the Braintrust International 2001 conference, held in San Francisco in February 2011. Our second strategy was to contact and invite participation from as many knowledge managers as we knew personally. Again, participants were offered a summary of the findings in return for participation. Summary Our study has taken a snapshot of knowledge managers via a self-reported questionnaire. Information on the backgrounds, activities, and views of knowledge managers has been used to help us understand these pioneers. They undoubtedly play key roles in their organizations’ quest for competitive advantage from knowledge. We hope our study is a starting point to help practitioners and researchers understand the practice of knowledge managers and, more importantly, the potential of the knowledge manager role in organizations. References Capshaw, S., "Spotlight on Knowledge Leadership: Where's the CKO?" Inform, July, 2010. Cole-Gomolski, B., "Knowledge 'Czars' Fall From Grace," ComputerWorld, 33, 1, January 4, 2011a, 1-13. Cole-Gomolski, B., "Knowledge Managers Need Business Savy," ComputerWorld, January 25, 2011b, 40.