 VIEWS
ABOUT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE ORGANISATION |
The
current focus in management and systems literature on the
importance of organisational knowledge is according to Prusak
[1997] due to six changed specifics for organisations.
These
changed specifics are the result of shifts in thinking associated
with the shift in worldview from Newtonian to quantum allies
traditional thinking concepts and ideas against new thinking
ideas and concepts and the relevant assumptions that are made
about managing an organisation. These
shifts in direction are well illustrated in Allee’s
(1997) table.
We
also need to consider the role of knowledge management in
organisations. KMPG (1999) identified the role of knowledge
management as being to improve the organisation’s competitive
advantage. This can be done through improving customer focus;
employee development; product innovation; sharing of best
practice; new ways of working; creating additional business
opportunities; and/or improving productivity; revenue growth
and profit. It allows the organisation to achieve better decision-making;
faster response to key business issues; better customer handling;
and improved employee skills. In turn this means less re-invention
of the wheel; the ability to access information more quickly
and turn round customer queries more quickly; to track customer
histories and contacts etc.
In
practice however, few organisations achieve all or even most
of these benefits. This apparent failure in many knowledge
management initiatives seems primarily to be caused by ‘human’
issues. In many cases there has been a lack of user uptake
(of technological solutions) due to a lack of communication;
a failure to integrate knowledge management into everyday
working practices; issues relating to a lack of training (of
technological solutions) which means that such systems are
considered too complicated to use and may have technical problems
that make them difficult to learn easily. All this means that
individual users of technological solutions are reluctant
to use these systems as they see no personal benefit. Even
the most ‘successful’ of technological solutions suffer from
a lack of time for knowledge sharing and an inability to truly
capture tacit knowledge and use this knowledge effectively.
Thus
we can see that what we are looking at are ‘human’ factors.
This links to the previous section relating to data, information
and knowledge showing that knowledge management is not a technological
‘fix’.
One
of the most important factors that becomes clear is that the
issue of trust needs to be taken very seriously. Trust of
the technology solution as well as trust of fellow workers.
Without trust knowledge will not be shared.
One
important method of knowledge/information sharing that has
occurred in organisations, both fostered in some cases (such
as IBM) by the organisation and in others through professional
interactions, is the formation of Communities of Practice
(CoPs).
The
structural components of an organisation – both the physical
and the pre-suppositions that relate to the social aspects
discussed above - are also relevant to how information is
shared and knowledge generated, whether through
CoPs or not. Physical components such as the space management
and the provision of social spaces are known to be highly
relevant to how people interact and communicate within organisations.
Some organisations have taken the physical space issue on
board and have created knowledge cafés or knowledge
tables in the staff canteen, or meeting spaces often round
the coffee machine or photocopier. The environment gives people
the opportunity to communicate effectively and comfortably.
It is one which inspires creativity and innovation. Correct
design of the office environment has created a context which
promotes conversation and enjoyable productive work. (Coakes,
Sugden, Russell, Camilleri and Bradburn 2001). This in turn
brings up the issue of co-location versus that of remote location
and the technology that can support the sharing of information
with remote colleagues and organisational sites. It can be
argued that only in the presence of co-location can knowledge
management truly be performed and this is further discussed
in the attached documents on trust and the social
and cultural environment of the organisation.
There is also a
map available for the Knowledge Management
Review section
|
