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