Knowledge organization (management)

Last updated

A knowledge organization is a management idea, describing an organization in which people use systems and processes to generate, transform, manage, use, and transfer knowledge-based products and services to achieve organizational goals.

Contents

Overview

From a functional perspective, in a knowledge organization, content (objects, data, information, knowledge, and wisdom) are generated by knowledge workers. Content is captured, organized, and preserved to enable its reuse and leveraging by people and groups other than those who generated it. Infrastructure is in place to enable sharing of content across all elements of an organization and with external partners, as appropriate. Procedures are in place to integrate content from multiple sources and mobilize it to achieve organizational goals and objectives. A learning culture promotes not only individual learning but also results in a shared understanding. Finally, the organization embraces continuous evolutionary change to sustain itself in a constantly changing environment.

Simard et al. (2007) [1] described five functions of a knowledge-service organization:

  1. generate content
  2. transform content into useful products and services
  3. preserve and manage content to enable organizational use and external transfer
  4. use content to achieve organizational goals
  5. transfer content externally, in the form of products and services

Functions 1, 3, and 5 are essential and cannot be bypassed.

A knowledge organization also links past, present, and future by capturing and preserving knowledge in the past, sharing and mobilizing knowledge today, and knowledge organizations can be viewed from a number of perspectives: their general nature, networks, behavior, human dimensions, communications, intelligence, functions and services.

History

In the 1970s Peter Drucker (1974) may have been the first to describe knowledge workers and knowledge work.

Knowledge is created and used by people. Strassman (1985) described the transformation of work in the electronic age from the standpoint of education and training for managers and employees, human aspects of the working environment, and issues of morale, motivation, privacy, and displacements.

In 1990 Charles M. Savage observed that the nature of an organization based on knowledge rather than industrial society notions of land, labor, or capital was not well understood. [2] Mcgee and Prusak (1993) noted that core competencies are not what an organization owns, but rather what it knows. [3]

Bartlett (1999) [4] indicates that empowerment is not possible in an autocratic organization, that networks cannot be sustained in fixed hierarchical structure, and that learning is not possible in an environment constrained by rigid policies and procedures.

Davenport (1997) used an information ecology approach, in which he explored the use and abuse of information in the context of infighting, resource hoarding, and political battles as well as appropriate management in such a context.

Simard (2000) [5] states that knowledge is inextricably linked to organizational mandates. Some providers strive for objectivity, others selectively disseminate information and knowledge, while still others use information to further their agenda. Users must understand that information is not innocent, and that all information is not created equal.

Knowledge organization topics

Network dimension

Knowledge organizations have a network dimension. Davis (1977) [6] states that networks would not replace hierarchies, but that the two would coexist within a broader organizational concept.

Similarly, Amidon (1997) [7] points out that traditional industrial-era hierarchies are neither flexible nor fluid enough to mobilize an organization's intellectual capacity and that much less constrained networked organizational forms are needed for modern decision making.

Tapscott (1998) [8] notes that there is an underlying logic and order to the emerging digital organizational form. It is networked, involves multiple enterprises, is based on core competencies, and knowledge is actively created, exchanged, and used.

Behavioral approach

There is also a behavioral approach. Bartlett (1999)[9] indicates that organizational structure is just a skeleton. Knowledge organizations also have a physiology in the form of the flow of information and knowledge, as life-blood. They also have a psychology represented by people's values and how they act as individuals and collectively.

Collective intelligence

Knowledge organizations also have collective intelligence. Liautaut (2001) [9] points out that in the knowledge economy, being an intelligent business is not only a prerequisite to winning, but even to compete in the first place. In a fluid, fast-paced knowledge market, companies that can find and exploit the slightest advantage for faster, better decision making will dominate. He also indicates that the greater the exchange of data and information across an organization, the more intelligent it will be.

Organizational knowledge

The knowledge in organizations is more complicated. Except from formal and informal documents, Davenport & Prusak’s (1998) also introduced routines, processes, practices and norms. It may therefore be clear that organizational knowledge is much more than a sum of all the individual knowledge (see Bhatt, 2000a). In a survey conducted by Cranfield University (1998) it became clear that most of the knowledge an organization needs, already exists in the organization, but that finding and identifying it were the problems (see also Hinds &Pfeffer, 2001). This has several explanations.

"As expertise increases, mental representations become more abstract and simplified"

Formal and informal knowledge sharing

All this theory is based on formal structures in an organization. Organizations all also exist out informal ties and networks. This complicates organizational goals of formal knowledge sharing. A company will lose track of who has what knowledge because of the informal networks. This does not mean that informal networks are negative, just on the contrary, informal networks can create ties and surroundings which are necessary for knowledge sharing (see Brown & Deguid, 2001). Informal networks have received different names in the literature such as sensemaking (Weick, 1979), communities of practice (Brown & Deguid 1998) and communities of knowing (Boland &Tenkasi, 1995), Nikolai Groups (Nikolaivitch 1956). As Pan & Leidner (2003) argue in their paper, communities of practice exist because functional boundaries do not fit the community boundaries. They state (pp 73): “facilitate an environment of 'structured informality' supported by knowledge, people, organizational processes and infrastructure.”

The implication and unfortunately also the complication of informal networks is that an organization loose the general view of the knowledge in the organization. As showed by Cross et al. (2001) an informal structure significantly differs of the formal one. To effectively maximize the potential the authors argue that it is necessary to analyze both structures. They introduce the so-called Social Network analysis which systematically assesses informal networks. Knowledge consequently can be collected from formal and informal networks to create a socio-knowledge matrix in organizations.

Organisational effectiveness

Zheng et al. (2010) studied mediating role of knowledge management and the findings indicate that knowledge management is not only an independent managerial practice, but also a central mechanism that leverages organizational cultural, structural, and strategic influence on organizational effectiveness. [10] Greiner et al. (2007) concluded a strong relationship between the success of knowledge management in terms of improving business performance of the organization and the alignment of KM strategy and business strategy. [11]

According to Greiner et al. (2007) two different knowledge management strategies have been discussed in the literature for sharing tacit and explicit knowledge. The codification strategy focuses on collecting knowledge, storing it in databases and providing the knowledge in an explicit and codified form. [12] Personalization strategy focuses instead on transferring, communicating and exchanging knowledge by utilising information technology. From the elements of the business strategy and knowledge management strategy can be formulate four different combinations. However, Greiner et al. (2007) suggest that if business strategy focuses on innovation then primarily should be relied on personalization strategy and respectively in case of efficiency then codification should have priority. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Business model Rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value in economic, social, cultural or other contexts

A business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value, in economic, social, cultural or other contexts. The process of business model construction and modification is also called business model innovation and forms a part of business strategy.

Knowledge management (KM) is the process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organization. It refers to a multidisciplinary approach to achieve organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge.

Organizational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization improves over time as it gains experience. From this experience, it is able to create knowledge. This knowledge is broad, covering any topic that could better an organization. Examples may include ways to increase production efficiency or to develop beneficial investor relations. Knowledge is created at four different units: individual, group, organizational, and inter organizational.

Knowledge transfer sharing knowledge for problem solving

Knowledge transfer refers to sharing or disseminating of knowledge and providing inputs to problem solving. In organizational theory, knowledge transfer is the practical problem of transferring knowledge from one part of the organization to another. Like knowledge management, knowledge transfer seeks to organize, create, capture or distribute knowledge and ensure its availability for future users. It is considered to be more than just a communication problem. If it were merely that, then a memorandum, an e-mail or a meeting would accomplish the knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer is more complex because:

In business, a competitive advantage is the attribute that allows an organization to outperform its competitors. A competitive advantage may include access to natural resources, such as high-grade ores or a low-cost power source, highly skilled labor, geographic location, high entry barriers, and access to new technology.

Knowledge workers are workers whose main capital is knowledge. Examples include programmers, physicians, pharmacists, architects, engineers, scientists, design thinkers, public accountants, lawyers, and academics, and any other white-collar workers, whose line of work requires one to "think for a living".

The eCRM or electronic customer relationship management coined by Oscar Gomes encompasses all standard CRM functions with the use of the net environment i.e., intranet, extranet and internet. Electronic CRM concerns all forms of managing relationships with customers through the use of information technology (IT).

Encapsulated knowledge is the value endowing meta-resource originating from thought, reflection, or experience that is embedded in an artefact’s design and functionality.

Thomas Hayes "Tom" Davenport, Jr. is an American academic and author specializing in analytics, business process innovation, knowledge management, and artificial intelligence. He is currently the President’s Distinguished Professor in Information Technology and Management at Babson College, a Fellow of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, Co-founder of the International Institute for Analytics, and a Senior Advisor to Deloitte Analytics.

A knowledge market is a mechanism for distributing knowledge resources. There are two views on knowledge and how knowledge markets can function. One view uses a legal construct of intellectual property to make knowledge a typical scarce resource, so the traditional commodity market mechanism can be applied directly to distribute it. An alternative model is based on treating knowledge as a public good and hence encouraging free sharing of knowledge. This is often referred to as attention economy. Currently there is no consensus among researchers on relative merits of these two approaches.

The informal organization is the interlocking social structure that governs how people work together in practice. It is the aggregate of norms, personal and professional connections through which work gets done and relationships are built among people who share a common organizational affiliation or cluster of affiliations. It consists of a dynamic set of personal relationships, social networks, communities of common interest, and emotional sources of motivation. The informal organization evolves, and the complex social dynamics of its members also.

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who "share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly". The concept was first proposed by cognitive anthropologist Jean Lave and educational theorist Etienne Wenger in their 1991 book Situated Learning. Wenger then significantly expanded on the concept in his 1998 book Communities of Practice.

Although information has been bought and sold since ancient times, the idea of an information marketplace is relatively recent. The nature of such markets is still evolving, which complicates development of sustainable business models. However, certain attributes of information markets are beginning to be understood, such as diminished participation costs, opportunities for customization, shifting customer relations, and a need for order.

The idea that knowledge has value is ancient. In the 1st century AD, Juvenal (55-130) stated “All wish to know but none wish to pay the price". In 1775, Samuel Johnson wrote: “All knowledge is of itself of some value.”

Knowledge policies provide institutional foundations for creating, managing, and using organizational knowledge as well as social foundations for balancing global competitiveness with social order and cultural values. Knowledge policies can be viewed from a number of perspectives: the necessary linkage to technological evolution, relative rates of technological and institutional change, as a control or regulatory process, obstacles posed by cyberspace, and as an organizational policy instrument.

Air Force Knowledge Now (AFKN) is a web-based collaborative environment developed by Triune Group for the U.S. Air Force (USAF). From 1999 to 2012, AFKN grew to more than 19,000 Communities of Practice (CoPs) and 400,000 members. In 2004, Air Force CIO John M. Gilligan designated AFKN the Air Force Center of Excellence for Knowledge Management, making it the USAF’s only certified and accredited enterprise-wide knowledge management program. By focusing on social, behavioral and cultural aspects of knowledge sharing, AFKN evolved beyond traditional knowledge management systems, which focused on capturing information through technology.

Knowledge sharing is an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people, friends, peers, families, communities, or within or between organizations.

Website governance is an organization's structure of staff and the technical systems, policies and procedures to maintain and manage a website. Website governance applies to both Internet and Intranet sites.

Text and conversation is a theory in the field of organizational communication illustrating how communication makes up an organization. In the theory's simplest explanation, an organization is created and defined by communication. Communication "is" the organization and the organization exists because communication takes place. The theory is built on the notion, an organization is not seen as a physical unit holding communication. Text and conversation theory puts communication processes at the heart of organizational communication and postulates, an organization doesn't contain communication as a "causal influence", but is formed by the communication within. This theory is not intended for direct application, but rather to explain how communication exists. The theory provides a framework for better understanding organizational communication.

Information culture

Information culture is closely linked with Information Technology, Information Systems and the digital world. It is difficult to give one definition of Information Culture and many approaches exist.

References

  1. ↑ Simard, Albert, John Broome, Malcolm Drury, Brian Haddon, Bob O'Neil, and Dave Pasho. (2007). Understanding Knowledge Services at Natural Resources Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Office of the Chief Scientist, Ottawa, ON.
  2. ↑ Savage, Charles M. (1990). 5th Generation Management. Digital Press. p. 88
  3. ↑ McGee, James and Laurence Prusak. (1993). Managing information Strategically. John Wiley & Sons. p. 42.
  4. ↑ Bartlett, Christopher A. (1999). The Knowledge-Based Organization, in: The Knowledge Advantage (Ruggles), p. 111
  5. ↑ Simard, Albert. (2000). Managing Knowledge at the Canadian Forest Service. Natural Resources Canada. p. 21.
  6. ↑ Davis, Stanley M. (1977). Future Perfect, p. 89.
  7. ↑ Amidon, Debra M. 1997. Innovation Strategy for the Knowledge Economy. Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 18.
  8. ↑ Tapscott, Don. (1998). Blueprint to the Digital Economy. McGraw-Hill.
  9. ↑ Liautaut, Bernard. (2001). E-Business Intelligence. McGraw-Hill. p. 4, 13
  10. ↑ Zheng, Wei (July 2010). "Linking organizational cul-ture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management ". Journal of Business Research. 63 (7): 763–771. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.06.005.
  11. ↑ Greiner, Martina (2007-10-30). "A strategy for knowledge management". Journal of knowledge management. 11 (6): 3–15. doi:10.1108/13673270710832127.
  12. ↑ Greiner, Martina (2007-10-30). "A strategy for knowledge management". Journal of knowledge management. 11 (6): 3–15. doi:10.1108/13673270710832127.
  13. ↑ Greiner, Martina (2007-10-30). "A strategy for knowledge management". Journal of knowledge management. 11 (6): 3–15. doi:10.1108/13673270710832127.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.