Knowledge
Management, (KM) is a concept and a term that arose approximately two decades
ago, roughly in 1990. Quite simply one might say that it means organizing an
organization's information and knowledge holistically, but that sounds a bit
wooly, and surprisingly enough, even though it sounds overbroad, it is not the
whole picture. Very early on in the KM movement, Davenport (1994) offered the
still widely quoted definition:
"Knowledge
management is the process of capturing, distributing, and effectively using
knowledge."
This
definition has the virtue of being simple, stark, and to the point. A few
years later, the Gartner Group created another second definition of KM, which
is perhaps the most frequently cited one (Duhon, 1998):
"Knowledge
management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying,
capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise's
information assets. These assets may include databases, documents, policies,
procedures, and previously un-captured expertise and experience in individual
workers."
Both
definitions share a very organizational, a very corporate orientation. KM,
historically at least, is primarily about managing the knowledge of and in
organizations.
The
operational origin of KM, as the term is understood today, arose within the
consulting community and from there the principles of KM were rather rapidly
spread by the consulting organizations to other disciplines. The consulting
firms quickly realized the potential of the Intranet flavor of the Internet for
linking together their own geographically dispersed and knowledge-based
organizations. Once having gained expertise in how to take advantage of
intranets to connect across their organizations and to share and manage
information and knowledge, they then understood that the expertise they had
gained was a product that could be sold to other organizations. A new product
of course needed a name, and the name chosen, or at least arrived at, was
Knowledge Management. The timing was propitious, as the enthusiasm for
intellectual capital in the 1980s, had primed the pump for the recognition of
information and knowledge as essential assets for any organization.
Perhaps
the most central thrust in KM is to capture and make available, so it can be
used by others in the organization, the information and knowledge that is in
people's heads as it were, and that has never been explicitly set down.
What
is still probably the best graphic to try to set forth what KM is constituted
of, is the graphic developed by IBM for the use of their KM consultants, based
on the distinction between collecting stuff (content) and connecting people,
presented here with minor modifications (the marvelous C, E, and H mnemonics
are entirely IBM's):
|
COLLECTING (STUFF) & CODIFICATION
|
CONNECTING (PEOPLE) & PERSONALIZATION
|
DIRECTED
INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE SEARCH
EXPLOIT
|
·
Databases, external & internal
·
Content Architecture
·
Information Service Support
(training required)
·
data mining best practices / lessons
learned/after action analysis
(HARVEST)
|
·
community & learning
·
directories, "yellow
pages" (expertise locators)
·
findings & facilitating tools,
groupware
·
response teams
(HARNESS)
|
SERENDIPITY &
BROWSING
EXPLORE
|
·
Cultural support
·
current awareness profiles and
databases
·
selection of items for alerting
purposes / push
·
data mining best practices
(HUNTING)
|
·
Cultural support
·
spaces - libraries & lounges
(literal & virtual), cultural support, groupware
·
travel & meeting attendance
(HYPOTHESIZE)
|
From:
Tom Short, Senior consultant, Knowledge Management, IBM Global Services
Another
way to view and define KM is to describe KM as the movement to replicate the
information environment known to be conducive to successful R&D—rich, deep,
and open communication and information access—and deploy it broadly across the
firm. It is almost trite now to observe that we are in the post-industrial
information age and that an increasingly large proportion of the working
population consists of information workers. The role of the researcher,
considered the quintessential information worker, has been studied in depth
with a focus on identifying environmental aspects that lead to successful
research (Koenig, 1990, 1992), and the strongest relationship by far is with
information and knowledge access and communication. It is quite logical then to
attempt to apply those same successful environmental aspects to knowledge
workers at large, and that is what in fact KM attempts to do.
Explicit, Implicit and Tacit Knowledge
In
the KM literature, knowledge is most commonly categorized as either explicit or
tacit (that which is in people's heads). This characterization is however
rather too simple, but a more important point, and a criticism, is that it is
misleading. A much more nuanced and useful characterization is to describe
knowledge as explicit, implicit, and tacit.
Explicit:
information or knowledge that is set out in tangible form.
Implicit:
information or knowledge that is not set out in tangible form but could be made
explicit.
Tacit:
information or knowledge that one would have extreme difficulty operationally
setting out in tangible form.
The
classic example in the KM literature of true "tacit" knowledge is Nonaka
and Takeuchi's example of the kinesthetic knowledge that was necessary to
design and engineer a home bread maker, knowledge that could only be gained or
transferred by having engineers work alongside bread makers and learn the
motions and the "feel" necessary to knead bread dough (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995).
The
danger of the explicit-tacit dichotomy is that by describing knowledge with
only two categories, i.e., explicit, that which is set out in tangible form,
and tacit, that which is within people, is that it then becomes easy to think
overly simplistically in terms of explicit knowledge, which calls for
"collecting" KM methodologies, and tacit knowledge, which calls for
"connecting" KM methodologies, and to overlook the fact that, in many
cases, what may be needed is to convert implicit tacit knowledge to explicit
knowledge, for example the after action reports and debriefings described
below.
What does KM really consist of? What
operationally constitutes KM?
So
what is involved in KM? The most obvious point is the making of the
organization's data and information available to the members of the
organization through portals and with the use of content management systems.
Content Management, sometimes known as Enterprise Content Management, is the
most immediate and obvious part of KM. For a wonderful graphic snapshot of the
content management domain go to realstorygroup.com and look at their 2012
Content Technology Vendor Map.
In
addition to the obvious, however, there are three undertakings that are quintessentially
KM, and those are the bases for most of what is described as KM.
0 comments:
Post a Comment