Knowledge Management Systems
Introduction:
Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) is a useful tool to re-engineer the use and efficiency of information systems in organisations.
However, prior to its implementation, the organisational knowledge limitations must be identified, a KMS solution(s) designed and then consideration of a way forward supported by IT - Moteleb and Woodman (2009). Otherwise, the organisation may end up with an under utilised system or one that is later abandoned due to the lack of belief in the need for KMS.
For the purpose of this article, Albion Fabric Limited (AFL), a fictitious fabric company will be explored by The Eagles group.
Challenge:
Inadequate or non-existent staff training is a current problem facing Albion Fabric Limited (AFL) as an organization. This is due to limited resources in terms of time, staff and finance. Staff are thus ill-equipped to deal effectively with clients or suppliers. Very little knowledge, if any is captured, retained and transferred to other staff. Significant knowledge is also lost during staff turnover.
Resolution:
MacSweeney (2002) suggests that the focus of a knowledge strategy can either be inward or outward. Irrespective of the focus, the strategy should not be Information Technology (IT) driven though IT can support a strategy. He further purports that to have a successful KM strategy; the business community has to be involved from the inception and sponsorship from business executives in essential.
The use of KMS can be introduced to AFL to enable the organization to process information, store and manage knowledge thereby helping to stay afloat and in some cases gain and maintain a competitive advantage - Turban et al (2006)
To this end, the focus should be inwards in AFL and management should look at providing online training for both existing and new staff. This would mitigate against knowledge loss due to staff turnover. Training will help bring the new staff to speed on the processes of the organization and suppliers, which the staff will need to interact with.
Online training is also available to existing staff in areas that require skills update, relevant to their roles. It can also be utilized by the organization to cross train other employees in the areas their colleagues are working in to fill any skills gap should any employee be absent due to sickness or leave.
Knowledge based system can also be an essential tool for staff at Albion. Knowledge captured from experts such as design technologists or designers can be stored in a knowledge based system. This can be implemented utilizing the company’s portal or intranet. A simple search facility can be implemented within the portal that links to repositories such as Microsoft Word and Excel, stored in a file structure such as Windows Explorer. The user logs onto the portal and types in word or title of a document or process and the document is made available to them on the portal.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs) made available on the company’s intranet is another solution that may be cost effective and enable Albion staff to save time on finding out about topics that may be vital to the success particular meetings with clients
Outcome:
Employees are more confident in their competence to carry out work effectively and efficiently in their use of scarce resources by the use of knowledge supported by information systems.
The intranet becomes a part of the organizations process. Buyers and garment technologists are educated within Albion about with the use of the internet.
Time is saved trying to locate relevant information and bringing staff up to speed with the organizational processes.
This improves staff morale, which results in a decrease in staff turnover
Reference:
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Turban E., Leidner D., McLean E, Wetherbe J.,. (2006). Information Technology for Management: Transforming organizations in the Digital Economy (5th Edition) p366
Moteleb A., Woodman M. (2009) “Uncovering a KMSD Approach from Practice”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (eJKM),
Saturday 4 April 2009
KMS in the Organization
Building Knowledge Management (KM) Systems in Organizations
“KM is more of a strategy supported by Information Technology (IT) that can show a quantifiable and sometimes substantial return on investment” (MacSweeney, 2002). Knowledge needs to be at the fingertips of people within an organization i.e. readily available and accessible. Ease of use and availability to internal users is also very important. In addition, the company culture needs to reflect knowledge use either by IT or collaboration.
The use of communities of practice (CoP) may be adopted within a company to enable ‘tacit’ knowledge becoming ‘explicit’. This can be in the form of people meeting weekly to discuss issues common to the organisations goals and objectives. For the CoP to be effective, a Chief Knowledge officer should be appointed to ensure knowledge is captured, stored and disseminated appropriately within the organisation. In addition, staff may be more encouraged and willing to participate in knowledge sharing, if an incentive scheme is in place. For example, a reward scheme of flexible working hours for participants of CoPs or free lunches during meetings.
An example of CoP in an organisation is the Acquisition Community Connection (ACC) of the US Department of Defence (DoD) and administered by Defence Acquisition University (DAU). The Acquisition Technology and Logistic staff are encouraged to share knowledge using CoP, which implements lessons learnt as part of their practice within the CoP. Under this culture of knowledge sharing, the CoP website harbours KM resources such as ‘Acquisition encyclopaedia’, ‘Ask a professor’ etc. Ask a professor serves as a Frequently Asked Questions database, which has a vast number of questions answered as briefly as possible. These questions vary from logistical questions to policy issues. The acquisition encyclopaedia, known as ‘ACQuipedia, a customized Wiki’, provides knowledge access i.e. an encyclopedia to acquisition related topics.
Considering the form of CoP implemented in the DoD, MacSweeney’s (2002) proposes that staff in an organisation and its customers need to be educated with the use of the internet, where products and services are described online, as well as coverage type, liability, background process for rating etc. Applying this concept to AFL (organization for group coursework), the use of the internet for buyers, garment technologists and customers may prove to be a beneficial KM strategy in the organization (MacSweeney, 2002).
Role of IT in Supporting Knowledge Management (KM)
Case Study by Laudon and Laudon (2006) where IT supports KM
Content Management Systems as an IT support for KM: Southern Company is an organization that generates electricity for over 4 million people in the United States of America.
The introduction of documentum system (IT content management system) cut down search time for essential documents and processes to 10 minutes from 2 hours and also increased the success in locating current content to 90% from 50%.
The IT supported knowledge management system also provided better resource availability to Southern Company in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Compared against other organizations, Southern Company were able to copy to disk, critical drawings/plans and other information allowing field based workers using laptops to access information needed, enabling quicker restoration of energy to their users.
Southern Company’s energy restoration to their users was accomplished in one day and twenty hours compared to their competitor’s restoration time that averaged three days and five hours.
The above benefits show how efficient and effective an organization can be if KM is supported by IT. It also demonstrates Southern Company’s competitive advantage of being able to deliver faster than their competitors.
Problems Faced by Southern Company:
Document intensive i.e. piles of documents to go through before identification/locating of required document(s)
Fragmented information in legacy system i.e. multiple legacy systems holding different forms of information
Manual processes: so many paper based forms to fill and manual processes to follow.
Ideal situation:
Reduced paper based documentation
Consolidated information in one accessible system
Automated processes
Results:
Cost reduction: Saving are made in the long-run on man hours regarding searching for information, designs, processes etc.
Reduced processing time: Time to process information, forms and business processes (e.g. energy restoration) is reduced.
Competitive advantage gained through cost and time reduction, increased staff morale, better customer service perception, etc
References:
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Defense Acquisition University: [accessed on 02/04/2009] https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=170879&lang=en-US
“KM is more of a strategy supported by Information Technology (IT) that can show a quantifiable and sometimes substantial return on investment” (MacSweeney, 2002). Knowledge needs to be at the fingertips of people within an organization i.e. readily available and accessible. Ease of use and availability to internal users is also very important. In addition, the company culture needs to reflect knowledge use either by IT or collaboration.
The use of communities of practice (CoP) may be adopted within a company to enable ‘tacit’ knowledge becoming ‘explicit’. This can be in the form of people meeting weekly to discuss issues common to the organisations goals and objectives. For the CoP to be effective, a Chief Knowledge officer should be appointed to ensure knowledge is captured, stored and disseminated appropriately within the organisation. In addition, staff may be more encouraged and willing to participate in knowledge sharing, if an incentive scheme is in place. For example, a reward scheme of flexible working hours for participants of CoPs or free lunches during meetings.
An example of CoP in an organisation is the Acquisition Community Connection (ACC) of the US Department of Defence (DoD) and administered by Defence Acquisition University (DAU). The Acquisition Technology and Logistic staff are encouraged to share knowledge using CoP, which implements lessons learnt as part of their practice within the CoP. Under this culture of knowledge sharing, the CoP website harbours KM resources such as ‘Acquisition encyclopaedia’, ‘Ask a professor’ etc. Ask a professor serves as a Frequently Asked Questions database, which has a vast number of questions answered as briefly as possible. These questions vary from logistical questions to policy issues. The acquisition encyclopaedia, known as ‘ACQuipedia, a customized Wiki’, provides knowledge access i.e. an encyclopedia to acquisition related topics.
Considering the form of CoP implemented in the DoD, MacSweeney’s (2002) proposes that staff in an organisation and its customers need to be educated with the use of the internet, where products and services are described online, as well as coverage type, liability, background process for rating etc. Applying this concept to AFL (organization for group coursework), the use of the internet for buyers, garment technologists and customers may prove to be a beneficial KM strategy in the organization (MacSweeney, 2002).
Role of IT in Supporting Knowledge Management (KM)
Case Study by Laudon and Laudon (2006) where IT supports KM
Content Management Systems as an IT support for KM: Southern Company is an organization that generates electricity for over 4 million people in the United States of America.
The introduction of documentum system (IT content management system) cut down search time for essential documents and processes to 10 minutes from 2 hours and also increased the success in locating current content to 90% from 50%.
The IT supported knowledge management system also provided better resource availability to Southern Company in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Compared against other organizations, Southern Company were able to copy to disk, critical drawings/plans and other information allowing field based workers using laptops to access information needed, enabling quicker restoration of energy to their users.
Southern Company’s energy restoration to their users was accomplished in one day and twenty hours compared to their competitor’s restoration time that averaged three days and five hours.
The above benefits show how efficient and effective an organization can be if KM is supported by IT. It also demonstrates Southern Company’s competitive advantage of being able to deliver faster than their competitors.
Problems Faced by Southern Company:
Document intensive i.e. piles of documents to go through before identification/locating of required document(s)
Fragmented information in legacy system i.e. multiple legacy systems holding different forms of information
Manual processes: so many paper based forms to fill and manual processes to follow.
Ideal situation:
Reduced paper based documentation
Consolidated information in one accessible system
Automated processes
Results:
Cost reduction: Saving are made in the long-run on man hours regarding searching for information, designs, processes etc.
Reduced processing time: Time to process information, forms and business processes (e.g. energy restoration) is reduced.
Competitive advantage gained through cost and time reduction, increased staff morale, better customer service perception, etc
References:
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Defense Acquisition University: [accessed on 02/04/2009] https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=170879&lang=en-US
Web 2.0
What is Web 2.0?
The most referenced definition of Web 2.0 is as by Tim O’Riley. In 2005, during a brainstorming session between MediaLive International and O’Riley, the term ‘Web 2.0’ was coined, in which, O’Riley described Web 2.0 network as a platform with a certain rule that the users add value to a web 2.0 application or service; in that, the more people that uses them, the better it becomes. An examples of a Web 2.0 application is a blog or a wiki (Wikipedia), social networking tools such as Facebook and LinkedIn.
Web 1.0 differs from Web 2.0
While Web 1.0 imparts knowledge to a passive audience by populating a web page or site with static information (e.g. online dictionary or encyclopaedia), Web 2.0 seeks to impart knowledge via a dynamic means, in that the audience is invited to comment on the existing content or indeed add their view to the page(s) (Oberhelman, 2007). As O’Riley (2005) suggests, Web 2.0 uses the web as a platform and the users add value to it.
However, another simple but interesting viewpoint from Oberhelman (2007) is the librarians perspective, where one cannot readily verify the authority of the writer in the Web 2.0 world. Whereas originality and authority can be proven by assessing the work of an author in comparison to other authors of similar articles and or books, the new wave of technology has made it such that any author can be an authority by pressing the edit button to add their information to a blog or wiki, by way or an article or a comment.
Web 2.0 in an Organization
Enterprise 2.0 is the use of Web 2.0 technology in an organization. Moira Levy (2009) likens this to the intranet being the ‘internet adopted within an organization’. Levy (2009) argues that two dimensions of Web 2.0 needs to be satisfied in order to achieve its implementation in an organization; (a) Technology adoption to include implementing a service oriented architecture (SOA) adopting Web 2.0 applications such as wikis and (b) the user orientation to include user adoption of the technology by the organization.
An example of a Web 2.0 application within an organization utilized for knowledge management is given by Oberhelman (2007), in what he calls “wikipediazation of the internet”. Here, peered reviewed articles are the collaborative efforts of a number of contributors. He cited the example of Public Library of Science (PLoS) One International Journal for Scientists. Scientists from various disciplines contribute to peer review and publish their work.
However, to address the growing concerns of librarians as described by Oberhelman (2007) regarding the authority on publications, PLoS One operate their knowledge management supported by Web 2.0, subjecting articles to rigorous peer reviews by experts and practising researchers. They also operate open access, where authors or original work have copyrights but anyone is allowed to reuse, modify or distribute the work as long as the author and source is cited. This facilitates the fast publications of journals, easy access to knowledge of scientist on pioneering issues worldwide and community based dialogue on articles among other benefits. (PLoS One, Unknown).
A further example is where the Department of Defence (DoD) utilises a customised Web 2.0 concept of a Wiki for their acquisition encyclopaedia called ‘Aquipedia’. Aquipedia is said to expand communication through mass collaboration within the organisation via their Community of Practice (CoP). It also provides a common area of knowledge for acquisition information. This encourages knowledge sharing, using Web 2.0 technology.
References:
Defense Acquisition University: [accessed on 02/04/2009] https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=170879&lang=en-US
Levy M., (2009). WEB 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), pp120-134
Oberhelman D., (2007). Coming to Terms with Web 2.0. Reference Reviews, 21 (7) pp. 5-6
O’Riley T., (2005). Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software accessed online at:http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
PLoS One (unknown) accessed online at: http://www.plosone.org/static/information.action
The most referenced definition of Web 2.0 is as by Tim O’Riley. In 2005, during a brainstorming session between MediaLive International and O’Riley, the term ‘Web 2.0’ was coined, in which, O’Riley described Web 2.0 network as a platform with a certain rule that the users add value to a web 2.0 application or service; in that, the more people that uses them, the better it becomes. An examples of a Web 2.0 application is a blog or a wiki (Wikipedia), social networking tools such as Facebook and LinkedIn.
Web 1.0 differs from Web 2.0
While Web 1.0 imparts knowledge to a passive audience by populating a web page or site with static information (e.g. online dictionary or encyclopaedia), Web 2.0 seeks to impart knowledge via a dynamic means, in that the audience is invited to comment on the existing content or indeed add their view to the page(s) (Oberhelman, 2007). As O’Riley (2005) suggests, Web 2.0 uses the web as a platform and the users add value to it.
However, another simple but interesting viewpoint from Oberhelman (2007) is the librarians perspective, where one cannot readily verify the authority of the writer in the Web 2.0 world. Whereas originality and authority can be proven by assessing the work of an author in comparison to other authors of similar articles and or books, the new wave of technology has made it such that any author can be an authority by pressing the edit button to add their information to a blog or wiki, by way or an article or a comment.
Web 2.0 in an Organization
Enterprise 2.0 is the use of Web 2.0 technology in an organization. Moira Levy (2009) likens this to the intranet being the ‘internet adopted within an organization’. Levy (2009) argues that two dimensions of Web 2.0 needs to be satisfied in order to achieve its implementation in an organization; (a) Technology adoption to include implementing a service oriented architecture (SOA) adopting Web 2.0 applications such as wikis and (b) the user orientation to include user adoption of the technology by the organization.
An example of a Web 2.0 application within an organization utilized for knowledge management is given by Oberhelman (2007), in what he calls “wikipediazation of the internet”. Here, peered reviewed articles are the collaborative efforts of a number of contributors. He cited the example of Public Library of Science (PLoS) One International Journal for Scientists. Scientists from various disciplines contribute to peer review and publish their work.
However, to address the growing concerns of librarians as described by Oberhelman (2007) regarding the authority on publications, PLoS One operate their knowledge management supported by Web 2.0, subjecting articles to rigorous peer reviews by experts and practising researchers. They also operate open access, where authors or original work have copyrights but anyone is allowed to reuse, modify or distribute the work as long as the author and source is cited. This facilitates the fast publications of journals, easy access to knowledge of scientist on pioneering issues worldwide and community based dialogue on articles among other benefits. (PLoS One, Unknown).
A further example is where the Department of Defence (DoD) utilises a customised Web 2.0 concept of a Wiki for their acquisition encyclopaedia called ‘Aquipedia’. Aquipedia is said to expand communication through mass collaboration within the organisation via their Community of Practice (CoP). It also provides a common area of knowledge for acquisition information. This encourages knowledge sharing, using Web 2.0 technology.
References:
Defense Acquisition University: [accessed on 02/04/2009] https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=170879&lang=en-US
Levy M., (2009). WEB 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), pp120-134
Oberhelman D., (2007). Coming to Terms with Web 2.0. Reference Reviews, 21 (7) pp. 5-6
O’Riley T., (2005). Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software accessed online at:http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
PLoS One (unknown) accessed online at: http://www.plosone.org/static/information.action
Wednesday 4 March 2009
KMS in Albion
Company Strategy
Albion Fabric's strategy is to have low margins/cost and high volume
Dedicated sales team per customer.
Albion Fabric has five teams, each focussed on a single customer, staff turnover is high, which reflects low staff morale. There is little training and knowledge learnt on the job is lost due to staff departures. Each team focuses on a client with different business needs and concentrate on achieving sales targets. Knowledge learnt is not transferred across teams.
Challenge
Inadequate or non-existent staff training is a current problem facing Albion Fabric Limited as an organization. The current challenge is such that the organization has not adequately trained staff due to unlimited resources to include; time, staff and money. To this end staff are ill-equipped to deal effectively with clients or suppliers as very little or no knowledge is not being captured, stored and transferred as staff are very busy trying to meet targets with existing clients. Staff are leaving and taking their knowledge with them
The use of knowledge management systems (KMS) can be introduced to Albion to enable the organization to process information, store and manage knowledge thereby helping to stay afloat and in some cases gain and maintain competitive advantage (Turban et al, 2006)
Resolution
MacSweeney (2002) suggests that the focus of a knowledge strategy can either be inward or outward, either way the strategy should not be Information Technology (IT) driven but IT can support a strategy. He further purports that to have a successful KM strategy, the business community has to be involved from the inception and sponsorship from business executives is essential.
To this end, the focus should be inwards and management could look at providing online training for existing and new staff. This could help counter the problem of high staff turnover, helping stop the brain drain. This would also be advantageous to the company as learning can be shared across teams, bringing new staff up to speed on the processes of the organization and suppliers, which the staff will need to interact with.
Online training is also available to existing staff on areas that require skills update an areas relevant to their roles. It can also be utilized by the organization to cross train other employees in the areas their colleagues are working in to fill any skill gap should any employee be absent due to sickness or leave.
Knowledge based system can also be an essential tool for staff at Albion. Knowledge captured from experts such as design technologists or designers can be stored captured in a knowledge based system. This can be implemented utilizing the company’s portal or intranet. A simple search facility can be implemented within the portal that links to repositories such as Microsoft Word and Excel stored in a file structure such as Windows Explorer. The user logs onto the portal and types in word or title of a document or process and the document is made available to them on the portal.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs) made available on the company’s intranet is another solution that may be cost effective and enable Albion staff to save time on finding out about topic that may be vital to the success particular meetings with clients.
The new knowledge management model can be adopted in implementing a knowledge management system in Albion as suggested by Sagsan (2006) as it covers the relevant stages of knowledge creating, sharing, structuring, using and auditing. The model works hierarchically in that one phase e.g. knowledge creating would successfully complete before going onto the next stage. Sagsan (2006) further suggests that as implementation of KM can be a daunting task the new KM model helps in breaking down the tasks into hierarchies which makes the task seem smaller.
Knowledge can be created in Albion through group or team discussions and meetings. On completion of the knowledge creating phase, sharing knowledge can be achieved by introducing team building exercises, discussions over lunch, via emails and by management encouraging a knowledge sharing culture. The structuring may take the form of information storing. In Albion this could possibly be by the use of windows explorer used as a repository and retrieved via the search facility on the intranet. The introductions of the system i.e. search facility and FAQs will facilitate the knowledge using phase though the knowledge auditing may need to be introduced by the sponsor of KM implementation to enable the measurement of intellectual capital and to take account of knowledge assets within the organization. Then the process of creating knowledge will start over (Sagsan, 2006).
Below is a diagram of the KM model:
Fig1 Knowledge Management Lifecycle Model (Sagsan, 2006)
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/22/2280049/kmlcmodel.JPG
Outcome
Employees are more confident in their competence to carry out work effectively and efficiently in their use of scarce resources by the use of knowledge supported by information systems.
The intranet becomes a part of the organizations process. Buyers and garment technologists are educated within Albion about with the use of the internet, which is access controlled
Time is saved trying to locate relevant information and bringing staff up to speed with the organizational processes.
Reference:
Turban E., Leidner D., McLean E, Wetherbe J.,. (2006). Information Technology for Management: Transforming organizations in the Digital Economy (5th Edition) p366
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Sagsan M., (2006). A New Lifecycle Model for Processing of Knowledge Management. 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Izmir
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Sagsan M., (2006). A New Lifecycle Model for Processing of Knowledge Management. 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Izmir
Albion Fabric's strategy is to have low margins/cost and high volume
Dedicated sales team per customer.
Albion Fabric has five teams, each focussed on a single customer, staff turnover is high, which reflects low staff morale. There is little training and knowledge learnt on the job is lost due to staff departures. Each team focuses on a client with different business needs and concentrate on achieving sales targets. Knowledge learnt is not transferred across teams.
Challenge
Inadequate or non-existent staff training is a current problem facing Albion Fabric Limited as an organization. The current challenge is such that the organization has not adequately trained staff due to unlimited resources to include; time, staff and money. To this end staff are ill-equipped to deal effectively with clients or suppliers as very little or no knowledge is not being captured, stored and transferred as staff are very busy trying to meet targets with existing clients. Staff are leaving and taking their knowledge with them
The use of knowledge management systems (KMS) can be introduced to Albion to enable the organization to process information, store and manage knowledge thereby helping to stay afloat and in some cases gain and maintain competitive advantage (Turban et al, 2006)
Resolution
MacSweeney (2002) suggests that the focus of a knowledge strategy can either be inward or outward, either way the strategy should not be Information Technology (IT) driven but IT can support a strategy. He further purports that to have a successful KM strategy, the business community has to be involved from the inception and sponsorship from business executives is essential.
To this end, the focus should be inwards and management could look at providing online training for existing and new staff. This could help counter the problem of high staff turnover, helping stop the brain drain. This would also be advantageous to the company as learning can be shared across teams, bringing new staff up to speed on the processes of the organization and suppliers, which the staff will need to interact with.
Online training is also available to existing staff on areas that require skills update an areas relevant to their roles. It can also be utilized by the organization to cross train other employees in the areas their colleagues are working in to fill any skill gap should any employee be absent due to sickness or leave.
Knowledge based system can also be an essential tool for staff at Albion. Knowledge captured from experts such as design technologists or designers can be stored captured in a knowledge based system. This can be implemented utilizing the company’s portal or intranet. A simple search facility can be implemented within the portal that links to repositories such as Microsoft Word and Excel stored in a file structure such as Windows Explorer. The user logs onto the portal and types in word or title of a document or process and the document is made available to them on the portal.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs) made available on the company’s intranet is another solution that may be cost effective and enable Albion staff to save time on finding out about topic that may be vital to the success particular meetings with clients.
The new knowledge management model can be adopted in implementing a knowledge management system in Albion as suggested by Sagsan (2006) as it covers the relevant stages of knowledge creating, sharing, structuring, using and auditing. The model works hierarchically in that one phase e.g. knowledge creating would successfully complete before going onto the next stage. Sagsan (2006) further suggests that as implementation of KM can be a daunting task the new KM model helps in breaking down the tasks into hierarchies which makes the task seem smaller.
Knowledge can be created in Albion through group or team discussions and meetings. On completion of the knowledge creating phase, sharing knowledge can be achieved by introducing team building exercises, discussions over lunch, via emails and by management encouraging a knowledge sharing culture. The structuring may take the form of information storing. In Albion this could possibly be by the use of windows explorer used as a repository and retrieved via the search facility on the intranet. The introductions of the system i.e. search facility and FAQs will facilitate the knowledge using phase though the knowledge auditing may need to be introduced by the sponsor of KM implementation to enable the measurement of intellectual capital and to take account of knowledge assets within the organization. Then the process of creating knowledge will start over (Sagsan, 2006).
Below is a diagram of the KM model:
Fig1 Knowledge Management Lifecycle Model (Sagsan, 2006)
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/22/2280049/kmlcmodel.JPG
Outcome
Employees are more confident in their competence to carry out work effectively and efficiently in their use of scarce resources by the use of knowledge supported by information systems.
The intranet becomes a part of the organizations process. Buyers and garment technologists are educated within Albion about with the use of the internet, which is access controlled
Time is saved trying to locate relevant information and bringing staff up to speed with the organizational processes.
Reference:
Turban E., Leidner D., McLean E, Wetherbe J.,. (2006). Information Technology for Management: Transforming organizations in the Digital Economy (5th Edition) p366
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Sagsan M., (2006). A New Lifecycle Model for Processing of Knowledge Management. 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Izmir
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p434
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology May 6, 2002
Sagsan M., (2006). A New Lifecycle Model for Processing of Knowledge Management. 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Izmir
Thursday 26 February 2009
Building Knowledge Management (KM) Systems in Organizations
“KM is more of a strategy supported by Information Technology (IT) that can show a quantifiable and sometimes substantial return on investment” (MacSweeney, 2002). Knowledge needs to be put at the fingertips of people within an organization i.e. readily available to everyone in an organization. This should not only be available but ease of use is very important. It needs to be the culture of the organization to use the knowledge available either by IT or collaboration. It needs to be enabled for users internally.
Buyers and customers need to be educated as with Armonk insurance company: with the use of the internet, products are described online, as well as coverage type, liability, background process for rating etc. Applying this scenario to Albion (organization for group coursework), the use of the internet for buyers, garment technologists and customers may prove to be a beneficial KM strategy in the organization (MacSweeney, 2002).
MacSweeney (2002) suggests that the focus of a knowledge strategy can either be inward or outward, either way the strategy should not be Information Technology (IT) driven but IT can support a strategy. He further purports that to have a successful KM strategy, the business community has to be involved from the inception and sponsorship from business executives in essential.
Role of IT in Supporting Knowledge Management (KM)
Case Study (Laudon and Laudon 2006)
Content Management Systems as an IT support for KM: Southern Company is an organization that generates electricity for over 4 million people in the
The introduction of documentum system (content management system) cut down search time for essential documents and processes to 10 minutes from 2 hours and also increased the success in locating current content to 90% from 50%.
- Fragmented information in legacy system i.e. a lot of legacy systems holding different forms of information
- Manual processes: so many paper based forms to fill and manual processes to follow.
- Reduced paper based documentation
- Consolidated information in one accessible system
- Automated processes
Results:
- Reduce cost: saving in the long-run on man hours regarding searching for information, designs, processes etc.
- Reduced time: to complete processes of energy restoration i.e. the knowledge required to restore energy, to find documents, to find information or content
- Competitive advantage gained through cost and time reduction
References:
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006). Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p14
MacSweeney G., (2002). The Knowledge Management Payback. Insurance and Technology
Wednesday 11 February 2009
Helpless KID: Uses of Terms in Knowledge Management
This article explains the meaning and uses of Data, Information and Knowledge (KID) within knowledge management.
According to Laudon and Laudon (2006), data is a stream of raw facts representing an event occurring in an organization which is, a meaningless and useless presentation of facts unless it undergoes some form of processing e.g. numbers in a cell of a spreadsheet means nothing until it has been processed or defined
Information on the other hand are these raw facts that has been given some meaning or has been processed. Information needs to be timely, meaningful and useful e.g. following the analogy above of numbers in a cell of a spreadsheed, it becomes information when the provider names the cell ‘Friday’s Team Attendance’ for instance. As Laudon and Laudon (2006) suggests “information is data that has been shaped into a form that is meaningful and useful to human beings”
An example of data and information in an organization setting given by Laudon is raw facts collected from a supermarket checkout e.g. 001 detergent 3.50 , processed and organised to produce meaningful information e.g. Item no = 001, Item = Detergent and 3.50 = unit price
Drucker (Unknown) defines knowledge as “information that changes something or somebody -- either by becoming grounds for actions, or by making an individual (or an institution) capable of different or more effective action."
If knowledge is processed data that has been given meaning that make it useful to human beings, then, knowledge, following Laudon’s example, would be to the sales team, knowing when to reorder stock levels of product in an organization.
Supporting my position on the relationship between Data, Information and Knowledge (KID) is Bellinger et al (2004), who suggests there is a linear relationship between data, information and knowledge. Without data information cannot exist and without information cannot exist either.’
Though, I agree with Bellinger et al (2004) that said the is one item that is required throughout the relationship between KID and that is understanding i.e. understanding is needed in data collection as to what data is required, it is also needed in order to transform date into information and the same is true for information to knowledge
However, having gone through lectures/seminars on KID, I have a differing opinion from Bellinger et al (2004) on the existence of a linear relationship between data, information and knowledge (KID). I still maintain there is a relationship between them but this could also be cyclic as data can create information and information, knowledge. From the knowledge created, a new set of data can come to light that needs transforming to additional knowledge. Another view exists that before one can determine the type of data to collect, one needs some information or indeed knowledge of some sort to be efective in the task of data collection. This may further reinforce the cyclic nature or relationship of KID.
Reference:
Bellinger, G., Castro, D., Mills A., (2004). Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom. Systems Thinking
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006) Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p14
Drucker, P. (Unknown).Knowledge. The New Realities [online, http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/knowledge/knowledge.html Accessed on 11 February 2009
According to Laudon and Laudon (2006), data is a stream of raw facts representing an event occurring in an organization which is, a meaningless and useless presentation of facts unless it undergoes some form of processing e.g. numbers in a cell of a spreadsheet means nothing until it has been processed or defined
Information on the other hand are these raw facts that has been given some meaning or has been processed. Information needs to be timely, meaningful and useful e.g. following the analogy above of numbers in a cell of a spreadsheed, it becomes information when the provider names the cell ‘Friday’s Team Attendance’ for instance. As Laudon and Laudon (2006) suggests “information is data that has been shaped into a form that is meaningful and useful to human beings”
An example of data and information in an organization setting given by Laudon is raw facts collected from a supermarket checkout e.g. 001 detergent 3.50 , processed and organised to produce meaningful information e.g. Item no = 001, Item = Detergent and 3.50 = unit price
Drucker (Unknown) defines knowledge as “information that changes something or somebody -- either by becoming grounds for actions, or by making an individual (or an institution) capable of different or more effective action."
If knowledge is processed data that has been given meaning that make it useful to human beings, then, knowledge, following Laudon’s example, would be to the sales team, knowing when to reorder stock levels of product in an organization.
Supporting my position on the relationship between Data, Information and Knowledge (KID) is Bellinger et al (2004), who suggests there is a linear relationship between data, information and knowledge. Without data information cannot exist and without information cannot exist either.’
Though, I agree with Bellinger et al (2004) that said the is one item that is required throughout the relationship between KID and that is understanding i.e. understanding is needed in data collection as to what data is required, it is also needed in order to transform date into information and the same is true for information to knowledge
However, having gone through lectures/seminars on KID, I have a differing opinion from Bellinger et al (2004) on the existence of a linear relationship between data, information and knowledge (KID). I still maintain there is a relationship between them but this could also be cyclic as data can create information and information, knowledge. From the knowledge created, a new set of data can come to light that needs transforming to additional knowledge. Another view exists that before one can determine the type of data to collect, one needs some information or indeed knowledge of some sort to be efective in the task of data collection. This may further reinforce the cyclic nature or relationship of KID.
Reference:
Bellinger, G., Castro, D., Mills A., (2004). Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom. Systems Thinking
Laudon, K., Laudon, J. (2006) Management Information Systems: Manging the Digital Firm (10th Edition) p14
Drucker, P. (Unknown).Knowledge. The New Realities [online, http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/knowledge/knowledge.html Accessed on 11 February 2009
Knowledge Management Models (KMM) and their Fit within Model Classification(s)
The aim of this article is to put some perspective on how a particular KMM can fit within one or more Knowledge Management (KM) model classifications. I particularly aim to fit models within Michael Earl’s nomenclature of models, with suitable examples.
Types of Knowledge Management (KM) Models
Literature research indicates that there are a number of accepted KMM including SECI model by Nonaka et al (2000), the KM Lifecycle Model by Sagsan (2006) and Epistemological and Ontological SECI (EOSECI) Model by Muina et al (2002). Under each model, knowledge can be described as either ‘tacit’ (not written) or ‘explicit’ (written).
Nonaka et al (2000) suggests that in the SECI Model, the process for knowledge creation works on the premise that knowledge can be created within an organisation by the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge, known as Knowledge Conversion. Knowledge conversion can be achieved by following the four components within the SECI model i.e. socialization (tacit to tacit), externalization (tacit to explicit), combination (explicit to explicit) and internalization (explicit to tacit).
It is my opinion that the SECI model fits within Earls 7 schools of knowledge management classification (2001), in particular, the behavioural school classification, which encompasses; the organizational, spatial and strategic schools. I say this because the very nature of the SECI appears to be social and epistemological and on studying Earl (2001) classification of models, the behavioural attributes clearly focuses on networks, space and mindsets and aims for knowledge pooling, knowledge exchange and knowledge capabilities.
I believe the utilisation of the SECI model is best suited to, non-IT communities of practices within and outside an organization and ‘not for profit’ organizations because;
1. It does not readily provide a structure to enable profit making.
2. It is not based on the use of information technology (IT) hence cannot promote use of IT. The impact on of its ‘non-IT’ nature will be adversely felt in large organizations, as they will need some form of IT to back up and enhance their processes in promoting KM as a means to attain competitive advantage
A simple example of where the SECI model can be adopted is within a church organization where competitive advantage is not required but the aim is to share knowledge on how to win souls for Christ and tend the flock i.e. the church goers. Also, it is not imperative to the success of this type of organization that IT based knowledge management is utilize. Gebert et al (2003) further supports my view by saying “Based on their definition of knowledge, all epistemological-oriented knowledge management models share a common weakness when used in an environment that requires evaluating knowledge as a business resource”.
Whilst there has been widely acclaimed use of SECI, there has also been some criticism of the model by various authors and scholars of KM.
These critics have suggested new models including the EOSECI model, which suggests the SECI can only be complete with both the epistemological and ontological models added to each components of SECI, which Muina et al (2002) have called the ‘holistic knowledge creation’. Muina et al (2002) also suggests that SECI only addresses the epistemological creation of knowledge but when the ontological creation of knowledge is added to a model, this creates a more balanced model. This view is echoed by Gebert (2003) as mentioned above.
In my understanding, the EOSECI model gives a better balance on knowledge management, which is what Gebert (2003) calls a ‘Hybrid model’. As a software test practitioner, I compare this to software testing, where tests can either be black box or white box based. Whilst black box looks at the external functioning of the system under test (SUT) and is completely blind to the internal workings of the SUT, white box tests specifically looks and exercises the internal workings of the SUT e.g. the written code that enables the program. You cannot get a complete test and assure the quality of the SUT unless both internal and external functions have been carefully considered. Analogy was inspired by Gebert (2003)
On the other hand, another critic of Nonaka’s work, Gourlay (2004) suggests the empirical grounding for SECI is not sound in that he found flaws in each section of the model, however, he did not come up with a new KMM.
Sagsan (2006) reviewed various KMM, including,
By Award and Ghaziri (2004) which entails capturing (knowledge gathering through emails, various files etc) – organizing (organizing information gathered in a useful manner e.g. indexing) – refining (this process aims to turn explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge by the use of data mining) – transferring (the acquired knowledge is transferred to members of an organization through necessary mediums such as training).
By Alavi and Leinder (2001). Their process is known to be in the information technologies (IT) context which Sagsan (2004) believes is limited to our understanding of IT. It encompasses knowledge creation – storage/retrieval – transfer – application.
Based upon his perceived deficiencies of KMMs, Sagsan proposed the “Knowledge Management Lifecycle Model”, which seeks to introduce a hierarchical approach to the KM process. This process includes: creating, sharing, structuring, using and auditing. Sagsan argues that other models do not clearly show the hierarchical relationship that exists between components of the model thereby making knowledge management a daunting task to carry out in organizations. The new model introduces five components: 1. Knowledge creating 2. knowledge sharing, 3. knowledge structuring, 4. knowledge using and 5. knowledge auditing. Each component has sub processes to ensure the completion of one phase before the next phase can commence. After the last phase completes, then the model suggests knowledge recreation i.e. the model has a cyclic or spiral nature as with the SECI model.
I however, believe the model by Alavi and Leinder (2001), albeit IT based can be very useful within the large and IT organizations, in that their business is obviously IT related and have a need for competitive advantage.
References:
Earl, M., (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Towards a Taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), pp215-233.
Gracier Muina G., Martin de Castro G., Lopez Saez P., (2002). The Knowledge Creation Process: A Critical Examination of the SECI Model. Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge
Gourlay S., (2004). The SECI Model of Knowledge Creation: Some Empirical Shortcomings
Sagsan M., (2006). A New Lifecycle Model for Processing of Knowledge Management. 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Izmir
Gebert H., Geib M., Kolbe L., Brenner W., (2003). Knowledge-enabled customer relationship management: integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts[1]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), pp107-123
Nonaka I., Toyama R., Konno N., (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33
Types of Knowledge Management (KM) Models
Literature research indicates that there are a number of accepted KMM including SECI model by Nonaka et al (2000), the KM Lifecycle Model by Sagsan (2006) and Epistemological and Ontological SECI (EOSECI) Model by Muina et al (2002). Under each model, knowledge can be described as either ‘tacit’ (not written) or ‘explicit’ (written).
Nonaka et al (2000) suggests that in the SECI Model, the process for knowledge creation works on the premise that knowledge can be created within an organisation by the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge, known as Knowledge Conversion. Knowledge conversion can be achieved by following the four components within the SECI model i.e. socialization (tacit to tacit), externalization (tacit to explicit), combination (explicit to explicit) and internalization (explicit to tacit).
It is my opinion that the SECI model fits within Earls 7 schools of knowledge management classification (2001), in particular, the behavioural school classification, which encompasses; the organizational, spatial and strategic schools. I say this because the very nature of the SECI appears to be social and epistemological and on studying Earl (2001) classification of models, the behavioural attributes clearly focuses on networks, space and mindsets and aims for knowledge pooling, knowledge exchange and knowledge capabilities.
I believe the utilisation of the SECI model is best suited to, non-IT communities of practices within and outside an organization and ‘not for profit’ organizations because;
1. It does not readily provide a structure to enable profit making.
2. It is not based on the use of information technology (IT) hence cannot promote use of IT. The impact on of its ‘non-IT’ nature will be adversely felt in large organizations, as they will need some form of IT to back up and enhance their processes in promoting KM as a means to attain competitive advantage
A simple example of where the SECI model can be adopted is within a church organization where competitive advantage is not required but the aim is to share knowledge on how to win souls for Christ and tend the flock i.e. the church goers. Also, it is not imperative to the success of this type of organization that IT based knowledge management is utilize. Gebert et al (2003) further supports my view by saying “Based on their definition of knowledge, all epistemological-oriented knowledge management models share a common weakness when used in an environment that requires evaluating knowledge as a business resource”.
Whilst there has been widely acclaimed use of SECI, there has also been some criticism of the model by various authors and scholars of KM.
These critics have suggested new models including the EOSECI model, which suggests the SECI can only be complete with both the epistemological and ontological models added to each components of SECI, which Muina et al (2002) have called the ‘holistic knowledge creation’. Muina et al (2002) also suggests that SECI only addresses the epistemological creation of knowledge but when the ontological creation of knowledge is added to a model, this creates a more balanced model. This view is echoed by Gebert (2003) as mentioned above.
In my understanding, the EOSECI model gives a better balance on knowledge management, which is what Gebert (2003) calls a ‘Hybrid model’. As a software test practitioner, I compare this to software testing, where tests can either be black box or white box based. Whilst black box looks at the external functioning of the system under test (SUT) and is completely blind to the internal workings of the SUT, white box tests specifically looks and exercises the internal workings of the SUT e.g. the written code that enables the program. You cannot get a complete test and assure the quality of the SUT unless both internal and external functions have been carefully considered. Analogy was inspired by Gebert (2003)
On the other hand, another critic of Nonaka’s work, Gourlay (2004) suggests the empirical grounding for SECI is not sound in that he found flaws in each section of the model, however, he did not come up with a new KMM.
Sagsan (2006) reviewed various KMM, including,
By Award and Ghaziri (2004) which entails capturing (knowledge gathering through emails, various files etc) – organizing (organizing information gathered in a useful manner e.g. indexing) – refining (this process aims to turn explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge by the use of data mining) – transferring (the acquired knowledge is transferred to members of an organization through necessary mediums such as training).
By Alavi and Leinder (2001). Their process is known to be in the information technologies (IT) context which Sagsan (2004) believes is limited to our understanding of IT. It encompasses knowledge creation – storage/retrieval – transfer – application.
Based upon his perceived deficiencies of KMMs, Sagsan proposed the “Knowledge Management Lifecycle Model”, which seeks to introduce a hierarchical approach to the KM process. This process includes: creating, sharing, structuring, using and auditing. Sagsan argues that other models do not clearly show the hierarchical relationship that exists between components of the model thereby making knowledge management a daunting task to carry out in organizations. The new model introduces five components: 1. Knowledge creating 2. knowledge sharing, 3. knowledge structuring, 4. knowledge using and 5. knowledge auditing. Each component has sub processes to ensure the completion of one phase before the next phase can commence. After the last phase completes, then the model suggests knowledge recreation i.e. the model has a cyclic or spiral nature as with the SECI model.
I however, believe the model by Alavi and Leinder (2001), albeit IT based can be very useful within the large and IT organizations, in that their business is obviously IT related and have a need for competitive advantage.
References:
Earl, M., (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Towards a Taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), pp215-233.
Gracier Muina G., Martin de Castro G., Lopez Saez P., (2002). The Knowledge Creation Process: A Critical Examination of the SECI Model. Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge
Gourlay S., (2004). The SECI Model of Knowledge Creation: Some Empirical Shortcomings
Sagsan M., (2006). A New Lifecycle Model for Processing of Knowledge Management. 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, Izmir
Gebert H., Geib M., Kolbe L., Brenner W., (2003). Knowledge-enabled customer relationship management: integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts[1]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), pp107-123
Nonaka I., Toyama R., Konno N., (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
