Week 3 - Knowledge Management...?

---

1. INTRODUCTION

The rapid change in the business world led to many organisations underestimating the role knowledge had on their organisations and did not assess the impact of knowledge loss (Chaffey & Wood, 2005).

Karl Wiig (1997) a well known Knowledge Consultant noticed in the 1980s, “individuals and organisations began to appreciate the increasingly important role of knowledge in the emerging competitive environment”.

Today many organisations find knowledge a crucial source, as Ichijō & Nonaka (2007) state that knowledge provides a “competitive advantage and as a factor that some how could be managed”.

Knowledge Management (KM) has developed and expanded as a concept since it came to prominence in the 1990s when researchers / writers such as Nonaka, Ichijō, Wiig, Davenport and Prusak were the first to publish some of the articles on the topic.

2. “MY PASSING THOUGHTS”

Knowledge management is new concept to one and seems to be same for the scholars that read KM.

‘I think knowledge is what is inside the individual’s head’

‘Knowledge Management is the idea to manage the knowledge inside the individual head’

3. BACKGROUND READING

3.1. What is Knowledge Management?

I found many meanings of KM from journals, books, websites, word of mouth, etc. All defined in different ways. The reason could be that KM has no standardised meaning, so there is ‘no right’ or ‘wrong’. However, KM is nothing new, apart from the name, Hansen et al. (1999) state:

“For hundreds of years, owners of family businesses have passed their commercial wisdom on to their children, master craftsmen have painstakingly taught their trades to apprentices, and workers have exchanged ideas and know-how on the job”

To understand ‘What is KM?’ I have outlined some prominent scholars in KM and listed their definitions in Table 1:

This table is not exhaustive (just constraints)…

As shown in Table 1, definitions are not so one dimensional. In agreement to each scholar’s they define KM in accordance to their own research, which they all come to the same assumptions from different ways.

3.2. The value from KM

According to Hansen et al. (1999) KM started to take off in the 1990s when chief executives started to talk about knowledge sharing, which it was only a matter of time that we Humans “shifted from natural resources to intellectual assets”. As a result, organisations started to evaluate the knowledge within and how that knowledge is used.

One trend I have seen from experience is the expression on organisation literature is ‘our people are our most valuable asset’ through promotional leaflets or slogans, which emphasis the value of knowledge within their employees.

Therefore employees are sometimes considered along with other knowledge resources as Intellectual Capital (IC) (Nerdrum & Erikson, 2001, Skyrme, 2008, Wexler, 2002). In addition organisations realised that KM could offer benefits such as competitive advantage and increase productivity across the organisation (Coulson-Thomas, 1997).

3.3. KM is not all about IT

KM came a reality within organisations because the use of IT, which Hansen et al. (1999) states “the rise of networked computers has made it possible to codify, store, and share certain kinds of knowledge more easily and cheaply than ever before”. Therefore KM ideas became popular with many organisations, which they could measure the value of the IC. For example: system applications could provide stored codified knowledge to others that required it.

According to Nicholas Bahra (2001) many organisations misunderstand KM as a form of IT, which could eventually replace the “skills and judgment of experience human workers” and Davenport & Prusak (1998) mention that IT does assist in the exchange of information and knowledge within and outside the organisation. Therefore it is critically important that the organisation understand the relationship between knowledge and technology.

3.4. Communities of Practice

An example of KM with and without IT is Communities of Practice (CoP).

Etienne Wenger el al (2002) was one of the originators of the CoP, which he states “CoP are group of people who share a concern, a set of problems or a passion about a topic and how they deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on ongoing basis”. The purpose of CoP is that the group will learn and share.

I knew the idea of CoP, however I never knew there was a name for it. This practice has been going on for centuries Hansen et al. (1999). CoP has always existed in organisations and when knowledge became progressively more important to competitive advantage, CoP became essential activity within the organisation. CoP differs from traditional organisation structures (Wenger el al, 2002); this is shown in Figure 1:

The organisation boundaries are all distinct to each department and structured around the organisation.

Whilst the CoP is blurred between boundaries within the organisation, it can be internally or externally (Wenger el al, 2002). For example: universities could have a helping practice between departments (internally) and with subsidiaries (externally).

An organisation must understand how CoP will be implemented, for example: using IT or conventional (face-to-face). This could be achieved by KM strategies that Hansen et al. (1999) outlines of codification and personalization, this is discussed in my work of KM Strategies (RSK – KMS, 2009).

3.5. Problems with KM

KM is the process of learning to share knowledge, skills and experience. The aim of the organisations is to capitalise on the shared ‘brainpower’ of its people. Cook (1999) states: “practical implementation of knowledge management is often problematic”. KM is suffering because most individuals believe KNOWLEDGE = POWER. Cook (1999) suggests another equation of “knowledge sharing and usage = much increased power, both formal and informal” and this is the way forward.

Organisation culture must change to develop KM; however the reality is that knowledge is power in many organisations. Thus knowledge sharing is not working because the fear and self interest of individuals working alone and not as whole for the organisation (Lin, 2007).

3.6 Controversy over KM

When something new appears, there will always be controversy for the good or for the bad, and KM is no exception. It has its critics for example: Professor Tom Wilson (2002) who wrote an article on ‘The nonsense of Knowledge Management’, who thinks it is just a passing fad. He goes on to say “it rests on two foundations: the management of information - where a large part of the fad exists and the effective management of work practices”. His opinion is that ‘knowledge can not be managed’, except by the individual that holds the knowledge and data and information are the only two that can be managed because they are tangible.

4. MY PERSONAL STAND POINT

I previously did not think about what KM meant to in terms of definitions. However I have come up with my own definition: ‘Knowledge Management is the process of identifying and then sharing the knowledge one creates; and then applying it with communities or within organisations to achieve goals’. This idea is shown symbolically in Figure 2:

I think definitions do matter, but to who uses them, for example: organisations must outline a KM definition to show its position and meaning of KM.

In response to Professor Tom Wilson (2002) article, I think KM, has been maturing, adding value and research improvement by many scholars. One issues Wilson say “management of work practices”, this is problem that needs addressed in many organisations, sharing of knowledge needs to happen for KM to really become effective.

5. THEORY IN PRACTICE

5.1. Develop a KM Definition for your Organisation

An organisation must develop a definition of KM in relation to their own business activities. This is evidently shown in Davenport & Prusak (1998) definition of the Procter & Gamble organisation (shown in Table 1). Procter & Gamble definition shows how they use KM processes to add value to there business activities, for example: Create à Share à Reapply the knowledge to the organisation on global scale. In addition, the knowledge gained by a manager in the USA could be shared with another manager in the UK, which means it could be reapplied to achieve business objectives within the UK.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) have defined KM as:

“The re-use of experience for the benefit of the organisation”

(MPS, 2006)

MPS organisation knows that tacit is held in the knowledge of the employees which they want to get hold of to use again for the organisation, this will help to achieve and provide better services for the wider community.

5.2. KM and the MPS

The MPS have embraced KM and introduced many initiatives to achieve their organisation goals. The use of KM is to assist in identifying crime trends and the corresponding knowledge about the detection and prevention of crime. In addition the increasing use of e-services by the public that demand 24hour information and knowledge for problem solving (Home Office, 2005).

5.3. Identify, Creating & Sharing Knowledge

Knowledge can be indentified and captured within the MPS in various forms, for example: incident reports, crime scene investigator reports, witness statements, suspect statements, crime scene photographs and drawings, informants, etc (Fraser, 2004).

From my earlier work I discussed knowledge can be defined as explicit and tacit knowledge (RSK - Knowledge 2009). The MPS define explicit knowledge as information management, which is different to what I have discussed, however contains the same characteristics. For example: the MPS will hold explicit knowledge in the form of a documentation which is used as guidance for police actions and decision-making. These document(S) such as polices, general orders, standard operating procedures contains the identification and codification to allow being stored on database.

The MPS sees tacit in terms of what goes on inside the head (thinking) is how they perceive knowledge, for example: experience and skills gained at crime scene, which is dynamic and fast changing compared to explicit knowledge (Berg et al, 2008).

According to Berg et al (2008), in order to be successfully in creating and sharing the tacit knowledge within police officers, this involves motivation and capacity to create and share the knowledge.

The motivation requires the willingness for creation and sharing the knowledge with other police officers. This involves leadership from a senior officer who, encourage(s) sharing, for example: CoP in social way of meetings, workshops, seminars, etc.

The capacity can be dealt with through training to improve the skills and abilities of police officers to do their jobs more efficiently using overall quality and IT. For example: CoP in IT way of e-mails, intranets, forums, collaboration tools, etc.

The MPS want officers to create and share knowledge, which at most of the time is a difficult task. Many reasons for why the MPS might find knowledge sharing a difficult challenge, is because it could be the lack of responsibility, systems, routines and resources (Berg et al, 2008).

5.4. Example of Sharing Knowledge

In MPS knowledge is shared through out the organisation. A local police station would hold a CoP for fortnightly to share, develop, validate and disseminate best practices. An example would be techniques to gather intelligences from the public and sharing this with other police officers to offer better service as whole.

This knowledge would be useful to new recruit(s) or even to the most experienced officer’s, so they can improve their techniques. This knowledge may have come from a very experienced officer with up to 30 years of experience. Also roles could be reversed as new dynamic recruit might have knowledge of certain culture that could be useful to the most experience officer.

Another important CoP is the MPS intelligence sharing communities, which share knowledge of Greater London criminals. This consists all levels of the organisations, internal and external officers from different police constabulary. This knowledge would spread throughout the organisation as shown in Figure 3. Strategic level would use this knowledge to act on, for example: develop new policy to tackle the issue, like Knife Amnesty....

5.4. Short Example of Software Experts using CoP

IT professionals recognise the importance of knowledge and they perceive the idea, more than just managing knowledge. They have recognised that environments can help to exchange knowledge, for example: CoP using collaboration tools to share knowledge between experts.

Twentyman (2009) states “corporate knowledge management initiatives have seen a steady rise in the use of wikis, for example, with groups of experts working together, pooling ideas and solving problems”. This is also the same case for IT professionals, the group of experts, which are specialising on the same work. For example: object oriented programming, would have CoP of innovation to discuss ways to develop new ideas or themes, with the aid of using of Wikis or Blogs to share these ideas or theories with other experts.

Knowledge would be shared in the CoP and new knowledge would also be created. This value added by sharing knowledge. The sharing of knowledge here creates an added value.

5.5. Reasons for not Sharing

From my own experience and from others, people see knowledge as power or IC. Something they see as asset that has value. For example: in the construction industry; people feel threatened to share their trade secrets, because they feel their position might become weaker and devalued.

People hold back for various reasons as they may feel they have leverage with the knowledge they hold (power). I have personally held knowledge back to protect my IC (ownerships), some organisation(s) in the private sector are very competitive and individuals appear to hold onto knowledge for power. Cook (1999) idea is fair because if knowledge is shared then organisation(s), society and communities would all improve.

---

Reference(s)
	Book		Bahra, N. (2001) Competitive Knowledge Management. Palgrave Macmillan: United Kingdom (UK), England, Hampshire, Basingstoke. [ISBN: 9780333948316]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3DfCmJH].
	Journal		Berg, M. E., Dean, G., Gottschalk, P. & Karlsen, J. T. (2008) Police management roles as determinants of knowledge sharing attitude in criminal investigations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume: 21, Issue: 3, Page(s): 271-284. [doi: 10.1108/09513550810863178]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09513550810863178/full/html].
	Book		Chaffey, D. & Wood, S. (2004) Business Information Management: Improving Performance Using Information Systems. Financial Times Prentice Hall: United Kingdom (UK), England, Essex, Harlow. [ISBN: 9780273686552]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3yZ6vdF].
	Journal		Cook, P. (1999) I heard it through the grapevine: making knowledge management work by learning to share knowledge, skills and experience. Industrial and Commercial Training, Volume: 31, Issue: 3, Page(s): 101-105. [doi: 10.1108/00197859910269185]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00197859910269185/full/html].
	Journal		Coulson-Thomas, C. J. (1997) The Future of the Organization: Selected Knowledge Management Issues. Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Page(s): 15-26. [doi: 10.1108/13673279710800691]. [Available on: Emerald: http://search.proquest.com/docview/28668233].
	Document		Fraser, C. (2004) Strategic Information Systems for Policing [Document]. Version. Page(s). Police Executive Research Forum: United States of America (USA), Washington D.C., (District of Columbia). [Accessed on: 2009-01-26]. [Available on: ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265074325_Strategic_Information_Systems_for_Policing].
	Journal		Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N. & Tierney, T. (1999) What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, Volume: 77, Issue: 2, Page(s): 106-116. [Available on: HBR: https://hbr.org/1999/03/whats-your-strategy-for-managing-knowledge].
	Journal		Hicks, R. C., Dattero, R. & Galup, S. D. (2006) The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy. Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume: 10, Issue: 1, Page(s): 19-31. [doi: 10.1108/13673270610650076]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13673270610650076/full/html].
	Document		Home Office (Police Standards Unit). (2005) Guidance on Statutory Performance Indicators for Policing 2005/2006 [Document]. Version. Page(s). Government of the United Kingdom - Home Office: United Kingdom (UK), England, London. [Accessed on: 2009-01-26]. [Available on: GOV.UK: https://depositedpapers.parliament.uk/depositedpaper/2256351/details].
	Book		Ichijo, K. & Nonaka, I. (2006) Knowledge Creation and Management: New Challenges for Managers. Oxford University Press: United Kingdom (UK), England, Oxfordshire, Oxford. [ISBN: 9780195159622]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3DaXaRB].
	Journal		Lin, C. P. (2007) To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, Volume: 36, Issue: 3, Page(s): 457-475. [doi: 10.1108/00483480710731374]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00483480710731374/full/html].
	FoIR		MPS. (2006) Information Management Strategy 2006-2011 [Freedom of Information Request]. Page(s): 1-66. Metropolitan Police Service: United Kingdom (UK), England, London. [Accessed on: 2009-01-01]. [Available on: Issuu: https://issuu.com/raviii/docs/foir-2006-mps-information-management-strategy-2006].
	Journal		Nerdrum, L. & Erikson, T. (2001) Intellectual capital: a human capital perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume: 2, Issue: 2, Page(s): 127-135. [doi: 10.1108/14691930110385919]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14691930110385919/full/html].
	Web		Skyrme, D. J. (2008) Measuring Knowledge: A Plethora of Methods [Online]. David Skyrme Associates: United Kingdom (UK), England, Berkshire, Newbury. [Accessed on: 2009-02-08]. [Available on: Skyrme: http://www.skyrme.com/insights/24kmeas.htm].
	Web		Tomlinson, H. & Evans, R. (2005) Tesco Stocks Up on Inside Knowledge of Shoppers' Lives [Online]. Guardian Media Group: United Kingdom (UK), England, London. [Accessed on: 2009-02-08]. [Available on: Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/sep/20/freedomofinformation.supermarkets].
	Web		Twentyman, J. (2009) Business starts to take Web 2.0 tools seriously [Online]. Financial Times: United Kingdom (UK), England, London. [Accessed on: 2009-02-08]. [Available on: FT.com: https://www.ft.com/content/d28887ea-eb49-11dd-bb6e-0000779fd2ac].
	Book		Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review Press: United States of America (USA), Massachusetts (MA), Middlesex, Cambridge. [ISBN: 9781578513307]. [Available on: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3z09vq8].
	Journal		Wexler, M. N. (2002) Organizational memory and intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume: 3, Issue: 4, Page(s): 393-414. [doi: 10.1108/14691930210448314]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14691930210448314/full/html].
	Journal		Wiig, K. M. (1997) Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, Page(s): 6-14. [doi: 10.1108/13673279710800682]. [Available on: Emerald: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13673279710800682/full/html].
	Journal		Wilson, T. D. (2002) The nonsense of 'knowledge management'. Information Research, Volume: 8, Issue: 1, Page(s): 144. [Available on: IR: http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html].

---

Reference (or cite) Article
	Kahlon, R. S. (2009) Week 3 - Knowledge Management...? [Online]. dkode: United Kingdom, England, London, Hendon. [Published on: 2009-02-02]. [Article ID: RSK666-0000007]. [Available on: dkode | Ravi - https://ravi.dkode.co/2009/02/week-2-what-is-knowledge-management_01.html].

---