The Concept of Knowledge Management


There is no common understanding or definition of the concept of knowledge management. Knowledge and information are very different phenomena. Therefore, we can assume that the underlying cause for the dilemma of explicitly defining the concept of KM lies with the difficulty of defining the concept of knowledge and its relation to the concept of information. However, the nature and differences of these concepts should be taken into account when providing frameworks of KM and information management (IM).

The most common definition of knowledge is based on Plato's idea that "knowledge is a well justified, true belief." However, Ingwersen's (1992, pp. 228–229) definition, for example, is more comprehensive: "Knowledge is an individual's total understanding of itself and the world around it at any given point in time, incorporating (sub)conscious memory, thinking and cognition, as well as emotional and intuitive properties." Communicating knowledge is a process. When communicated, knowledge becomes information and, consequently, the raw material of new knowledge. Due to its nature as a dynamic resource, information is also something transitive. People produce and receive information. Often information is described as a message, or as data, which makes a difference. Information has a meaning, and it can be catalogued and documented. Information becomes knowledge when a person internalizes it. According to Ingwersen (1992, p. 228), the concept of information, from the perspective of information science, has to satisfy dual requirements: on the one hand, information is the result of a transformation of a generator's knowledge structures; on the other hand, information is something which, when perceived, affects and transforms the recipient's state of knowledge.

Knowledge representations stored in information systems can be called knowledge artifacts. Generally the purpose of KM is seen to be to provide these resources for use (see e.g., McInerney, 2002; Davenport & Cronin, 2000). This perception brings KM close to the traditional role of IM. However, the role of personal knowledge — particularly in KM — has been emphasized, for example, by Choo (1998) and Skyrme (1997). Choo (1998) points out that to transfigurate information into learning, insight, and commitment to action is the goal of KM. Skyrme (1997) suggests that KM is explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated processes of creating, gathering, organizing, diffusion, use and exploitation of knowledge. This requires turning personal knowledge into corporate knowledge to be widely shared throughout an organization and appropriately applied. Skyrme's definition covers social and behavioral aspects related to people in organizations and the IM infrastructure and, thus, thereby coming close to Koenig's concept of knowledge capital.

Moreover, knowledge is often understood as consisting of both explicit and tacit elements. The identification of the tacit nature of knowledge can be traced back to Polanyi (1958, 1966). Nonaka (1994; see also Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) popularized the concept in the SECI-model of knowledge creation in the mid-1990s. However, many authors have claimed that the concept of tacit knowledge is used too superficially in the conceptions of KM (e.g., Cook & Brown, 1999; Yates-Mercer & Bawden, 2002). Wilson (2002) even points out Nonaka's and Takeuchi's misuse of the term when, in fact, referring to implicit knowledge that can be externalized verbally (see also Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 246). Tacit knowledge is the most intangible form of organizational knowledge because it is very personal in nature and difficult to articulate. However, it is manifested in people's behavior, way of acting and carrying out tasks in practice. This view relates to the constructionist approach that regards knowledge as a social construct (e.g., von Krogh, 1998, cited here by Hildreth & Kimble, 2002).

It has, moreover, been stressed that the distinction between KM and IM is the fact the KM aims at enabling and actively supporting expertise (Blair, 2002, p. 1022). To be able to complete, for example, a problem-solving task, co-workers have to learn from each other. Learning of this kind is called situated learning, the concept popularized by Lave and Wenger (1991). To enable the emergence of communities of practice is a means of supporting such development. Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion for a topic, and who increase their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). For example, a group of co-workers characterized by situated learning to master the knowledge required for problem solving in a joint task can be called a community of practice (see also Davenport & Hall, 2002).

Due to the social nature of both knowledge and information, many authors are in favor of the concept of organizational knowing and its management, rather than the term knowledge management (e.g., Orlikowski, 2002; Cook & Brown, 1999; Brown & Duguid, 2001; Choo, 1998; Choo & Bontis, 2002). McInerney (2002, p. 1012) states that knowing involves the whole person, mind and body; emotion, cognition, and physicality that together create what is known. According to her, the concept of a community of practice has evolved as knowledge can be seen as a collection of processes that allow learning to occur and knowing to be internalized (p. 1012). Sveiby (1996) claims that during this decade research in KM will focus on knowledge as a process, rather than knowledge as a thing. Furthermore, Blackler (1995) uses the concept of knowing in order to emphasize the active nature of knowledge as a process. He argues that the five different types of knowledge he has identified in organizational literature, namely, embrained, embodied, encultured, embedded and encoded, are insufficient to account for knowledge as a social process (see also Choo & Bontis, 2002). Moreover, for example, Boisot's (1998) views strongly support the social nature of knowledge. His thesis is that the evolution of knowledge forms a social learning circle that consists of transformational phases from personal knowledge through proprietary knowledge to public knowledge and common sense. According to him personal knowledge, through codification of shared experience, can become proprietary knowledge or, on an aggregate scale, the intellectual capital of an organization. Later on, after being externally scrutinized, this knowledge becomes public and, when widely internalized, turns into common sense. In the major part of the literature on knowledge management, however, the key issue is the recognition that knowledge is related to individual persons, i.e., it exists in their minds. However, it is this specific feature of knowledge that makes its management problematic and has caused a lot of academic debate about the relevance of the concept of knowledge management.

We claim that the management of people is as crucial as the management of information when aiming at the strategic management of knowledge and information as a resource. This idea, however, is not new (see e.g., Streatfield & Wilson, 1999, p. 68). Yet, in a networked, global economy the area of KM is multidimensional involving a diversity of external actors and stakeholders of an organization. In this wide area, information management (IM) has an essential role to play as the management of information flows and messages, information resources and practices of delivery used to enhance these flows, in order to maximize exploitation of information in all processes of a knowledge-based organization. This view is supported by Hansen, Nohria and Tierney (1999, p. 110) who state that the: "highest benefits are achieved when KM is coordinated with human resources, information technology and competitive strategy" and this "coordination requires the leadership of general management." (See also e.g., Mackenzie Owen, 1999.)

The concepts of intellectual capital and knowledge capital seek to count for the social and behavioral factors as crucial when enhancing knowledge creation, sharing and utilization within and between organizations. Therefore, we suggest that KM involves the management of people as creators of knowledge and the management of information as the raw material of processes related to knowledge creation and production. We define KM as the combination of human resource management (HRM) and IM. Therefore, it relates to all those processes that are concerned with the identification, acquisition, creation, storage, distribution, and use of both information and knowledge (see Huotari, 1998; Iivonen, 1999). We emphasize that the distinctive nature of both information and knowledge should be taken into account when aiming to manage organizational knowledge. Due to its social nature, knowledge is inextricably linked to human behavior.




L., Iivonen M. Trust in Knowledge Management Systems in Organizations2004
WarDriving: Drive, Detect, Defend, A Guide to Wireless Security
ISBN: N/A
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2004
Pages: 143

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net