Knowledge, which stems from information and data, is the utilization of this information and data in conjunction with people’s beliefs, interpretations, experiences, skill, intuition, and creativity. It results only after one processes information and experiences and becomes aware of their meaning and interrelationships.
There are two broad types of knowledge:
- Explicit knowledge, which is factual and can be proven.
- Tacit knowledge, which is gained from personal experience.
It is important to distinguish between these two types of knowledge, largely because they have different values and need to be managed in different fashions. Recognizing the difference between the two also helps in evaluating the scopes of projects and in avoiding miscommunication. |
| Knowledge management is a structured and organized way to collect, verify, store, disseminate, and utilize knowledge, and to keep this knowledge up to date. It generally entails the interplay of knowledge, technology, strategy, and people (the key holders of knowledge), and is a very effective way of gaining a competitive advantage and increasing overall performance and profitability. |
| Knowledge is valuable when it conveys some sort of a benefit. For instance, it might offer an additional insight into the status quo, serve as a building block for innovative ideas and ventures, lead to an increase in efficiency or profits or confer a competitive advantage, etc. A piece of knowledge is more valuable when it can be reused, expanded or adapted to different situations. |
| Dell Computers’ customized-computer-ordering system Dell utilizes its customized-computer-ordering system to collect information concerning customer demand and system configuration. This utilization of the customer purchase information to affect future production is part of a KMS; however it is evident that it serves as a primary gateway to Dell’s main KMS. Dell uses components of a KMS by making a direct connection between the organization’s intellectual assets, both explicit and tacit with positive business results. By itself, the Internet ordering component of Dell’s system would not be classified as a KMS but could be fed into a larger system. |
|
Xerox Corporation is an example of a company which has heavily invested its future in KM and it is an example of a company that is making KM work for them. Xerox is a leading knowledge company which has a very strong cultural focus on learning and sharing knowledge and its knowledge management efforts have the support and encouragement of upper management, which form the basis for a successful KMS. The company employs a multitude of knowledge management systems, including Eureka, DocuShare, and Document Portals which function under the auspice of its “knowledge sharing” philosophy. |
| Various VMI systems are data management systems that would be integral components of a data warehouse but not a KMS. VMI systems fall into the category of information systems; they assist in only the superficial generation of knowledge. Systems of this nature as not truly KMS they are more ERP focused in that that provide direct project payoff. Systems of this nature like CORE IMS provide a more integrated knowledge exchange as opposed to a traditional KMS. |
| Various content-management systems provide enterprise content management (ECM) solutions that enable people to collaboratively create, manage, deliver and archive the content that drives business operations, from documents and discussions, to email, Web pages, records and rich media, using one common content platform and repository. Content management systems like Documentum, Knowledge Exchange, etc. are KMS’s since supporting the evolutionary life cycle of digital information is essentially what a KMS does. |
| ERP systems such as PeopleSoft, SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are software tools that consolidate information from within existing corporate databases. These types of systems lack the creation, collection or sharing of knowledge. They serve as tools that aid in the control of business activities, and thus aid in process management rather than knowledge management. |
Some of the “musts” for a KMS are as follows:
- Centralized, technology-enabled system
- Well-organized and easy to search through
- Stable and secure
- Flexible, adaptable, scalable and efficient
- Collaborative, enhances and expedites communication
- Straightforward, user-friendly interface
- Facilitate collection, verification, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge
- Contain reusable knowledge
- Contain reliable and up-to-date knowledge
- Offer strategic and competitive advantages
- Aligned to corporate goals and business strategy
- User buy-in and upper management support
|
Some of the key differences between KMS's and other IS's are as follows:
- KMS's tend to have an expansive scope and be organization-wide, unlike other IS’s which are often smaller in scope and have more specific departmental uses
- KMS's serve primarily as a repository for tacit / informal knowledge, unlike other IS’s which usually serve as source of data / information / explicit knowledge.
- User participation is essential for a KMS, but not for most other IS’s.
- Unlike other IS’s, KMS are based on the philosophy of sharing and foster knowledge sharing.
- KMS's tend to be growing and evolving systems, unlike other IS’s which tend to be relatively static.
- KMS's facilitate a cultural learning organization skilled at creating, acquiring and sharing of knowledge that results in modifying behavior to reflect new insights, innovation and non-duplication of effort that other systems do not.
|
Several distinct reasons as to why people “obfuscate, delay, and generally refuse to cooperate” when it comes to sharing knowledge:
- Knowledge is often equated with power, importance, and job security, and people may feel threatened when they have to share knowledge since they believe this might diminish their power, importance, and job security.
- Some people are selfish and may not wish to make tasks easy for people by sharing their knowledge if they had to struggle.
- Due to politics and lack of mutual trust, people may be concerned that others will misuse the knowledge or that their contributions will not be acknowledged.
- People might not have confidence in their own knowledge, and thus might be reluctant to share it with others. Or they might just be pretending to know a lot when they really don’t know anything, and thus really have nothing to share.
- People may not have time to share their knowledge, or they may feel that it is a waste of their time, especially if the KMS interface is complex or if they fail to realize the importance of knowledge sharing.
All of these factors impede the successful implementation of a knowledge management system, and need to be overcome by changing the culture of the organization to one that fosters the sharing of knowledge. |
- Align various rewards with knowledge sharing behavior, and identify recipients of these awards as role models for the rest of the firm, to serve as an incentive for knowledge sharing.
- Communicate the importance and benefits of knowledge sharing not just to the firm but to individuals as well (since an improvement to the firm’s bottom-line ultimately trickles down to employees at all levels).
- Try to ensure job security for contributors of knowledge, and make people aware that non-contributors are not assured of job security. Related to this, hire people who appear to be proponents of knowledge sharing, and fire people who appear to be strong opponents.
- Provide a simple and user-friendly KMS interface tailored to the needs of the employees and the specifics of the industry. Perhaps even involve employees in the process of developing or tailoring the KMS. Also, set basic policies and standards for knowledge sharing to facilitate the process of knowledge sharing.
- Get the blessings and support of upper management for knowledge sharing. Managers should also budget time on the project plan for knowledge sharing, so that people incorporate it into their list of tasks to work on and do not feel that they have to do that on the side, on their own time which is conducive to a learning organization.
|
| Several ways for an organization to evaluate its knowledge management efforts are developing metrics to assure the knowledge management efforts are aligned with business goals, including measuring cost savings, increased productivity, and tangible benefits. The evaluation process should also keep track of the general usage of the KMS, noting the number of times knowledge within the KMS is utilized by others, using the milestone approach. The ongoing usage tracking of the KMS should be evaluated at periodic timeframes, noting user satisfaction levels, and conducting periodic audits to determine that the information contained in the KMS is accurate and up-to-date. |
|
The first question is a closed-ended question that will elicit a simple yes/no response and is not very conducive to collecting knowledge for a KMS, whereas the second question is an open-ended question that will elicit a more detailed response and enable more relevant and valuable knowledge to be recorded.
Several of us have also noted that although the open-ended question is more useful in collected knowledge, it is phrased in a more leading manner than the first, which could potentially lead to inaccurate information being collected; clear definitions need to be defined to ensure the correct information.
It would be prudent to take it a step further by issuing questionnaires, and conducting surveys and interviews. This would yield a more complete picture in building a KMS that is aligned with the corporate strategy and vision. Ideally, the two questions should be used in conjunction with each other in order to maximize accuracy and completeness of the knowledge contained in a KMS depending on the goal of the KMS (i.e. company wide KMS, departmental KMS, or system specific KMS). |
|
The class will be heavily influenced by the limited amount of time that it has to create the class project. Because of this, the class should focus on meeting a pre-set list of deliverables within the time allotted. Performance goals and objectives will be established at both the individual and group levels for enhancing the existing website. The project is to learn and gain a deeper insight into the design, implementation, and workings of a KMS, and class members should subjectively appraise the insight they have gained into each of these aspects by the end of the project as part of the evaluation effort. In addition, an evaluation by future classes, in the form of a questionnaire, would help to evaluate the KMS.
Although the evaluation methods of the two groups are similar, the most important differences are time constraint and business objectives. KM is long term and would have to show a clearly defined business benefit over time. The class project is very short term in nature and setting goals of gaining and sharing knowledge by collectively building a process is an important factor. An organizations business objective is to share knowledge to produce a greater ROI, and the class project objective is to improve the existing KMS website for future students. |
|
Many companies nowadays utilize various grading systems to identify and distinguish between top performers, average performers, and non-performers. However, the criteria underlying most of these systems are very vague and subjective, which has led to a glut of lawsuits charging discrimination. A KMS would help provide a much more objective system of grading employees. Companies could keep track of employee contributions to the KMS, and the extent to which these contributions are utilized by others within the firm. This could help determine the value that the employee was adding to the firm, and thus be used to help determine what grade that employee should receive.
A KMS could also be used by employees to provide feedback, reviews, and comments about other employees, i.e. to share their knowledge about other employees. This might not be the manner in which KMS’s are typically used, but the scope of the KMS could be expanded to incorporate this. The knowledge contained in the KMS could then be used as an aid in determining each employee’s grade.
The KMS could also be used to collect, store, and disseminate knowledge that would educate employees regarding the factors used to determine their grades. In a rapidly growing and changing environment, these criteria keep evolving, so the KMS would have to be continually updated to reflect this. In particular, top performers could be encouraged to contribute their strategies and best practices to the KMS in order to provide other employees with a better insight on how to receive a higher grade, and poor performers could discuss what not to do in order to avoid receiving a low grade. |
|
Two of the major paradigms on which KMS's are based are the god’s eye paradigm (GEP) and the distributed intelligence paradigm (DIP). GEP is the traditional approach to KM wherein knowledge is viewed as an objective resource; DIP is an emerging paradigm that is based on the concept that knowledge is always contextual. The following list, which includes pros and cons, is an assessment of each paradigm.
God’s Eye Paradigm (GEP):
- Pros
- Considered a generic KM paradigm
- Easier to implement but offers less value
- An ideal solution for a narrowly structured organization
- Cons
- Construction is relatively straight-forward
- Unable to handle real complexity or problems
- Not well suited for a large organization
- Not for organizations with dynamic environments
Distributed Intelligence Paradigm (DIP):
- Pros
- May offer more value because knowledge is viewed within context
- Well suited for larger organizations with divisions across the horizontal plane
- Ideal for integrating a KMS that has emerged within an organizational unit over time
- Cons
- Implementation seems highly resource-intensive
- More complex to implement and use
|
|