Article 2: Knowledge Management System (KMS)
2.1. Introduction:
In the growing competitive world, every organization has responsibility to improve or to share the individual’s knowledge within the organization. But managing and maintaining knowledge within an organization is a very challenging process. Application of the KMS in an organization plays a major role to survive in the competitive world to store, combine and share the knowledge. Therefore the major challenge of Knowledge Management System is the capability of organizations to be flexible and respond more quickly to the changing market conditions and the ability to be more innovative as well as improving decision making and productivity (Stata, 1997; Harris, 1996). The challenge of managing knowledge is more depend on the capture and combination of knowledge (Grant, 1996; Davenport, 1997a). The effective Knowledge Management System will be support the creation and dissemination of knowledge within the organization members, (O’Brien, 22). Therefore, individual tacit knowledge will be captured, stored and distributed in a systematical way for the use of organization members in the future usage to improve the productivity of organizations growth, (Mc Lure, 20; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Cody et al, 2002; Liao, 2003; Feng et al, 2004).
The knowledge will be managed with the support of IT, therefore the KMS is like a specific information systems, (Alavi and Leidner 2001) that mainly focus on organizational knowledge resources and process. The KMS include variety of Knowledge management applications such as DSS, CIS, DRMS, SCMS, GIS and EIS etc…. The improved new Knowledge Management System must provide the dynamics for effectively solving problems, enabling innovation, and providing the environment for continuous process and product improvement. I would like to discuss this point with my past employment experience.
2.2. Criticise with real life situation:
When I was working in the United Nations in Sri Lanka as a Information Systems Officer my main responsibility was to combine, manage and share the information from other stakeholders. The organization was facing some difficulties in how to collect, store, process, manage and share the knowledge from other organization members and publics. The collecting data was not a difficult part in our organization process, but combining the collected datum systematically and making the information quickly accessible by all the members our organization and the other organizations. On the other hand responding quickly to other members and organizations requests was the vital part in our project management, (O’Brien, 22).
Without the support of IT Management Systems we can’s store, combine and share large amount of information of other stakeholders. I had some situations where I had to manage, and share information and to respond quickly to other stakeholders. In this situation I faced some difficulties as we do not have proper systems. I raised some questions in our monthly conference as follows, for a long term view without any system how can we manage the information or knowledge? Is there any possibility to manage manually with high efficiency? And I answered for my second questions as, ‘definitely not in my experience’.
At the end of many meetings and discussions our organization decided to develop a information system to handle huge amount of data and information, (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). This system was called as Coordination and Planning System (CAPS). This CAPS system stored large amount of data to combine, interpret and quickly give the responses to other stakeholder’s requests. The CAPS system was helping me to easily find answer for where, when, who, why, which (W5) questions. And also this new system avoids the duplication of work, save plenty of time. In addition it’s was helping to take a decision easily, lessen the complexity of work etc. In this scenario the CAPS is an application of Knowledge Management System where the knowledge was captured, stored, combined, processed and shared with the support of IT.
2.3. Conclusion:
As I have real world experience without working, and then working with a proper system, I could say that the knowledge management system is very helpful in managing the information and sharing them within the organization and out side the organization in an efficient way. The improved new knowledge management system must provide the dynamics for effectively solving problems, enabling innovation, and providing the environment for continuous process and product improvement.
2.4. Reference
Stankosky. M. (2005) Creating the Discipline of the Knowledge Management
Anna Griman, Teresita Rojas, Maria Perez (2002) Methodological Approach for Developing KMS
Christopher Lueg and Xavier Alaman (2002) Knowledge Management and Information Technology
G.C. Mohanta, V. Kannan, K.P.Thooyamani (2006) Strategies for Improving Productivity of Knowledge Workers
Mohamed Khalifa, Angela Yan Yu and Kathy Ning Shen (2008) Knowledge management systems success: a contingency perspective
Jun Xu and Mohammed Quaddus (2004) A reality-based guide to KMS diffusion
Friday 3 April 2009
Article1: Knowledge, can be Manage within the Organisation?
1.1 Introduction:
An organizations competitive advantage mostly depends on its knowledge than anything. Now we will think about the knowledge, if the knowledge is not transferred or not shared to other members of the organization, what will happen to that knowledge? Definitely that knowledge is limited within the certain members of the organization. Think about it? The innovative production is the result of the organization success and sustainability of the competitiveness. The other question arising, how the innovative productivity come to enhance the quality of work? Definitely the answer is knowledge maturity and sharing the knowledge within the group members or organizational members. Sharing the knowledge will create more new ideas and quality of work, therefore the knowledge could be managed within the members in a proper way and this will reflect on the organizations process and the output. Therefore the Knowledge Management is an organizational memory (Laurence Prusak), which will enhance the organization success and the sustainability of competitiveness.
1.2. Criticise with real life situation:
When we think about Middlesex University, its ranking and the quality are in back compared to the best Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, in the UK. My question is why Middlesex University ranking and quality is in back? Definitely I can say that the knowledge is not managed in a proper way within the stakeholders in the University. The sustainability and its success come on its stakeholders. Therefore, each stakeholder plays a supportive role in order to achieve the success to compete with the leading UK Universities. I have identified lack of knowledge transfer in some specific areas such as Learning, teaching, and research, Student’s experiences, Productivity and efficiency, and Technologies and tools.
The next question is how these specific areas were created a backward in the knowledge sharing? The technology and tools such as OASIS plus, Extranet, Intranet, Wiki, Blogger and podcasting etc...Were not apply or not used in a proper way to share and manage the knowledge within the University. Therefore these resources should be used in a proper way to share and manage the knowledge with in the University. I could suggest some examples to enhance the student industrial experiences; the University can maintain a wiki which could be linked with the companies which offer graduate industrial placements. Therefore students will be able to know about the companies and will make a chance to get an industrial placement opportunities making contact through Wiki. And also student can publish their research articles on the Wiki, this will enhance the knowledge to share and manage within the organization. Many organizations use wikis and blogs to share the knowledge and they have already succeeded (Miller 2008).
Establishing corporate libraries would enhance the knowledge of the student as well as academic staff rather than having a separate library, a central library, accessible to all other locations leads to better efficiency because fewer staff resources are used. This will improve the students and staff will collaborate more in gaining knowledge within a centralised placed as opposed to different locations, therefore the intranet resources need to be used in a much efficient manner by improving the productivity of knowledge creation and sharing (Nonaka 1995). The University has an extranet, does not perform all the function in order to support the knowledge sharing, since it has world wide access, extra caution should be taken to limit its accessibility to only university’s critical stakeholders. For example, OASIS plus can be considered as extranet which can be accessed by the students and academic staff from outside the University. If students and staff do not take the advantage of using the existing system up to the maximum, it can be seen as a waste of resources. Instead of using common and classical technologies like E-mail, simple real time knowledge flows such as chat can be used to transfer knowledge among students and academics. Therefore students should be encouraged to collaborate with lectures more effectively. It is also helpful for lectures to enhance their own knowledge in order for them to share good quality knowledgeable students. If the resources will be used in a proper way to share the knowledge within the organization then the knowledge will be managed.
1.3. Conclusion:
Sustainability of the competitiveness, the organization has to share the knowledge within the organization. Therefore, knowledge must be managed within the organization. In order to manage the organizational knowledge for a long term purposes the knowledge should be managed with the support of technology in a proper way. Then the knowledge will be managed within the organization.
1.4. References:
Sarshar, M. 2006. Sharing good practice across construction organisations: The search continues. http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/BLT/BUE_Docs/sarshar.pdf
Michael H Zack. 1998. If Managing Knowledge is the Solution, then what’s the Problem?
Laurence Prusak. Knowledge Management in Organization
Nonaka.I and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York. Oxford University Press.
1.1 Introduction:
An organizations competitive advantage mostly depends on its knowledge than anything. Now we will think about the knowledge, if the knowledge is not transferred or not shared to other members of the organization, what will happen to that knowledge? Definitely that knowledge is limited within the certain members of the organization. Think about it? The innovative production is the result of the organization success and sustainability of the competitiveness. The other question arising, how the innovative productivity come to enhance the quality of work? Definitely the answer is knowledge maturity and sharing the knowledge within the group members or organizational members. Sharing the knowledge will create more new ideas and quality of work, therefore the knowledge could be managed within the members in a proper way and this will reflect on the organizations process and the output. Therefore the Knowledge Management is an organizational memory (Laurence Prusak), which will enhance the organization success and the sustainability of competitiveness.
1.2. Criticise with real life situation:
When we think about Middlesex University, its ranking and the quality are in back compared to the best Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, in the UK. My question is why Middlesex University ranking and quality is in back? Definitely I can say that the knowledge is not managed in a proper way within the stakeholders in the University. The sustainability and its success come on its stakeholders. Therefore, each stakeholder plays a supportive role in order to achieve the success to compete with the leading UK Universities. I have identified lack of knowledge transfer in some specific areas such as Learning, teaching, and research, Student’s experiences, Productivity and efficiency, and Technologies and tools.
The next question is how these specific areas were created a backward in the knowledge sharing? The technology and tools such as OASIS plus, Extranet, Intranet, Wiki, Blogger and podcasting etc...Were not apply or not used in a proper way to share and manage the knowledge within the University. Therefore these resources should be used in a proper way to share and manage the knowledge with in the University. I could suggest some examples to enhance the student industrial experiences; the University can maintain a wiki which could be linked with the companies which offer graduate industrial placements. Therefore students will be able to know about the companies and will make a chance to get an industrial placement opportunities making contact through Wiki. And also student can publish their research articles on the Wiki, this will enhance the knowledge to share and manage within the organization. Many organizations use wikis and blogs to share the knowledge and they have already succeeded (Miller 2008).
Establishing corporate libraries would enhance the knowledge of the student as well as academic staff rather than having a separate library, a central library, accessible to all other locations leads to better efficiency because fewer staff resources are used. This will improve the students and staff will collaborate more in gaining knowledge within a centralised placed as opposed to different locations, therefore the intranet resources need to be used in a much efficient manner by improving the productivity of knowledge creation and sharing (Nonaka 1995). The University has an extranet, does not perform all the function in order to support the knowledge sharing, since it has world wide access, extra caution should be taken to limit its accessibility to only university’s critical stakeholders. For example, OASIS plus can be considered as extranet which can be accessed by the students and academic staff from outside the University. If students and staff do not take the advantage of using the existing system up to the maximum, it can be seen as a waste of resources. Instead of using common and classical technologies like E-mail, simple real time knowledge flows such as chat can be used to transfer knowledge among students and academics. Therefore students should be encouraged to collaborate with lectures more effectively. It is also helpful for lectures to enhance their own knowledge in order for them to share good quality knowledgeable students. If the resources will be used in a proper way to share the knowledge within the organization then the knowledge will be managed.
1.3. Conclusion:
Sustainability of the competitiveness, the organization has to share the knowledge within the organization. Therefore, knowledge must be managed within the organization. In order to manage the organizational knowledge for a long term purposes the knowledge should be managed with the support of technology in a proper way. Then the knowledge will be managed within the organization.
1.4. References:
Sarshar, M. 2006. Sharing good practice across construction organisations: The search continues. http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/BLT/BUE_Docs/sarshar.pdf
Michael H Zack. 1998. If Managing Knowledge is the Solution, then what’s the Problem?
Laurence Prusak. Knowledge Management in Organization
Nonaka.I and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York. Oxford University Press.
Article 3: How to Apply Web 2.0 Technologies in KM
3.1. Introduction:
Over the past few years, the web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, re-purposed and passed along, (Downes, 2005). Nowadays we are entering into a new phase of web evolution which is a read-write Web. A new generation of user-centric, open, dynamic web, with peer production, sharing, collaboration, collective intelligence, distributed content and decentralized authority in the foreground. This new web generation has been referred to as “Web 2.0” (O’Reilly, 2005). Now we can see what is this Web 2.0? According to Anderson (2007), Web 2.0 is “an umbrella term that attempts to express explicitly the framework of ideas that underpin attempts to understand the manifestations of these newer Web services within the context of technologies that have produced them”. Let’s look at some of these webs 2.0 technologies, such as Wiki, Blogger, RSS, Podcasting, and Delicious, and the role they play on supporting Knowledge Management.
3.2. Critical Analysis of How to Apply Web 2.0 Technologies in Supporting KM
At present the teaching institutions such as Universities, and some organizations (for example NHS) using these web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning in order to enhance the knowledge within the students, staffs and other academic members. When we consider a blog which is simply a webpage or a personal journal that contains periodic, chronological ordered posts, additionally grouped by categories also users can often add comments to posts. In the Knowledge Management subject, the blogger which I created has facilities to post my views and ideas, and get comments or responses from other students and the lecturers. This technology is academically satisfying me and is helping to improve my writing better and share the knowledge in a stylish way. This could be extended to other subjects in order to share the knowledge within the students and staff. With the application of Web 2.0 technology in blogging, knowledge can be shared easily, refined, retained and transferred.
Many companies use wikis to share the knowledge and they have already succeeded (Miller 2008). But these wikis have their own issues as well. For example, as a university, it will be cumbersome to use common wikis because there are many people who might not have requisite knowledge about a particular subject. A Wiki is fundamentally a web of interlinked pages where each page typically contains a description of the concept. So, in my case I feel the university can maintain a Wiki in which a student will be able to publish his/her area of interest and the experience he/she would like to get. This Wiki should be advertised to all the graduate recruitment and placement offering companies so that the companies can go through it and find the interesting proposals. Therefore the student can apply the industrial experience or knowledge to write a better project and to do the viva exam.
A podcasting is simply like a group of sound files. I feel this will improve the student learning abilities in addition to the normal lecture. Because in my case or other students view I think if the lectures can use more video or audio files during the lectures the students will be easily keep the subject in memory the and write the answers well during the exam.
RSS is a technology that makes it easy to share resources across networks as it brings content from different sources. Therefore I feel using the RSS technology, the Middlesex University can share their research conferences with other university academic staffs or other universities can share their research conferences with other university staffs the use of RSS. So, I feel with the use of RSS the knowledge can refine and retained and the students can get to know the lecturer to do their research study and at the same time students can apply those knowledge in their field of studies to get a better results.
Delicious can also be used as tool for knowledge sharing. Delicious is a social bookmaking site, this make bookmaking more useful and more organized. If I consider our KM lecture class as a scenario, KM class can get more benefit from this tool. Since Delicious bookmaking is public students can view all the other members’ bookmarks and can tag according to the order of the bookmarks. Also students can view our lectures bookmarks in KM and then those bookmarks can be benefits for others group members within the class. This method provides new and relevant materials regarding the topic. Therefore it leads to share and create knowledge within this subject.
3.3 Conclusion:
In my view as I have discussed above how this web 2.0 technologies will apply for knowledge management to improve the learning, teaching, and sharing, it will be a best teaching methodology in all the sectors to easily Manage the Knowledge within and outside the organization. Instead of previous web versions, application of Web2.0 version makes the facility to have two way communications by sending comments and answering questions like a forum.
3.4. References:
Davenport and T H & Prusak (1998).Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts
Etienne Wenger (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University
Laura Cooney (2006). Wiki as a Knowledge Management Tool
Anderson, P. (2007). "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education", JISC Technology and Standards Watch
3.1. Introduction:
Over the past few years, the web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, re-purposed and passed along, (Downes, 2005). Nowadays we are entering into a new phase of web evolution which is a read-write Web. A new generation of user-centric, open, dynamic web, with peer production, sharing, collaboration, collective intelligence, distributed content and decentralized authority in the foreground. This new web generation has been referred to as “Web 2.0” (O’Reilly, 2005). Now we can see what is this Web 2.0? According to Anderson (2007), Web 2.0 is “an umbrella term that attempts to express explicitly the framework of ideas that underpin attempts to understand the manifestations of these newer Web services within the context of technologies that have produced them”. Let’s look at some of these webs 2.0 technologies, such as Wiki, Blogger, RSS, Podcasting, and Delicious, and the role they play on supporting Knowledge Management.
3.2. Critical Analysis of How to Apply Web 2.0 Technologies in Supporting KM
At present the teaching institutions such as Universities, and some organizations (for example NHS) using these web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning in order to enhance the knowledge within the students, staffs and other academic members. When we consider a blog which is simply a webpage or a personal journal that contains periodic, chronological ordered posts, additionally grouped by categories also users can often add comments to posts. In the Knowledge Management subject, the blogger which I created has facilities to post my views and ideas, and get comments or responses from other students and the lecturers. This technology is academically satisfying me and is helping to improve my writing better and share the knowledge in a stylish way. This could be extended to other subjects in order to share the knowledge within the students and staff. With the application of Web 2.0 technology in blogging, knowledge can be shared easily, refined, retained and transferred.
Many companies use wikis to share the knowledge and they have already succeeded (Miller 2008). But these wikis have their own issues as well. For example, as a university, it will be cumbersome to use common wikis because there are many people who might not have requisite knowledge about a particular subject. A Wiki is fundamentally a web of interlinked pages where each page typically contains a description of the concept. So, in my case I feel the university can maintain a Wiki in which a student will be able to publish his/her area of interest and the experience he/she would like to get. This Wiki should be advertised to all the graduate recruitment and placement offering companies so that the companies can go through it and find the interesting proposals. Therefore the student can apply the industrial experience or knowledge to write a better project and to do the viva exam.
A podcasting is simply like a group of sound files. I feel this will improve the student learning abilities in addition to the normal lecture. Because in my case or other students view I think if the lectures can use more video or audio files during the lectures the students will be easily keep the subject in memory the and write the answers well during the exam.
RSS is a technology that makes it easy to share resources across networks as it brings content from different sources. Therefore I feel using the RSS technology, the Middlesex University can share their research conferences with other university academic staffs or other universities can share their research conferences with other university staffs the use of RSS. So, I feel with the use of RSS the knowledge can refine and retained and the students can get to know the lecturer to do their research study and at the same time students can apply those knowledge in their field of studies to get a better results.
Delicious can also be used as tool for knowledge sharing. Delicious is a social bookmaking site, this make bookmaking more useful and more organized. If I consider our KM lecture class as a scenario, KM class can get more benefit from this tool. Since Delicious bookmaking is public students can view all the other members’ bookmarks and can tag according to the order of the bookmarks. Also students can view our lectures bookmarks in KM and then those bookmarks can be benefits for others group members within the class. This method provides new and relevant materials regarding the topic. Therefore it leads to share and create knowledge within this subject.
3.3 Conclusion:
In my view as I have discussed above how this web 2.0 technologies will apply for knowledge management to improve the learning, teaching, and sharing, it will be a best teaching methodology in all the sectors to easily Manage the Knowledge within and outside the organization. Instead of previous web versions, application of Web2.0 version makes the facility to have two way communications by sending comments and answering questions like a forum.
3.4. References:
Davenport and T H & Prusak (1998).Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts
Etienne Wenger (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University
Laura Cooney (2006). Wiki as a Knowledge Management Tool
Anderson, P. (2007). "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education", JISC Technology and Standards Watch
Monday 16 February 2009
Definition of KM
Article 3: Understanding the definition of Knowledge management (KM)
This article is to discuss about the definition of knowledge management (KM), and I would like to analyse some of the existing definitions of the Knowledge Management in literature view, and based upon I would like to discuss the definition of knowledge management with some real life examples which will illustrate the definition of knowledge management in my view.
3.1. Analysis and of knowledge management (KM) in literature view
Peter Drucker – “The key to unlocking the value of information and knowledge is “action,” that is, it must be dynamic”.
Reflection/Opinion- this suggestion is giving the part of application of the KM, but as mentioned in the suggestion, the action taken must be dynamic. So, in my view this suggestion is not a fully expressing the KM but partially acceptable as he did not mention about the managing the knowledge.
Liebowitz (1999) – “The active and dynamic implementation and management of knowledge are critical to enabling organizational performance enhancements, problem solving, decision making, and teaching”
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion can be fully acceptable in my view, because as the author has mentioned active and dynamic implementation and knowledge of management are important in achieving the organizational target.
Wiig (1997) – “KM is the systematic, explicit, and deliberate building, renewal, and application of knowledge to maximize an enterprises knowledge-related effectiveness and returns from its knowledge assets”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion is acceptable because he has mentioned the core concepts of KM, and how that the KM can lead to enhance the organizational goals.
O’Dell (1996) – “KM applies systematic approaches to find, understand, and use knowledge to create value”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion is also similar to Liebowitz (1999), but has said in short and sweet. As the application of KM in an organization is to create a value and to achieve its objectives, I can suggest that this suggestion is an acceptable.
Leonard (1995) – “The processes and terminology associated with KM often sound abstract, only hype, or simply new “management verbiage”; however; it is concrete, practical, and profoundly important”.
Reflection/Opinion- According to my view this suggestion is very difficult to understand. But he did not mention the systematic processes are in the KM, he has only mentioned the process and terminology also he is saying also sound abstract, how is it possible in the entire organizational environment? May be KM should be in theory in some working environment. Also he has mentioned that is a concrete, practical and profoundly important I agree this concept.
Stacey (2002)- “Knowledge Management is not possible, only possible to manage people, and create framework for communication”.
Reflection/Opinion- The above suggestion is not fully acceptable, because he has only mentioned KM is possible in some circumstances, in my question is how he can say that the KM is only applicable for manage people and create a frame work for communication? Why that the KM is possible for apply to produce a product or may be applying for day to day life…?
Laudon, KC and Laudon (2004) – “KM is a process that helps organizations identify, select, organize, disseminate and transfer important information and expertise, that are part of the organizations memory and that typically reside within the organization in an unstructured manner”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion not fully acceptable in my view. He has mentioned simply it is a process but how it is systematically process the knowledge in an organization. But he has suggested that memory is in the organization in unstructured manner. That is not acceptable because the basic concept of the KM is a structured systematic process. Her suggestion has partially acceptable in some condition not suitable at all conditions.
Laudon, KC and Laudon (2004) – “The structuring of knowledge enables effective and efficient problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision making”.
Reflection/Opinion- He has suggested her view of KM excellently, because an organizational goal can be achieved by solving the problems efficiently, and learning the new thinks from previously faced problems and experience. By dynamically learning previous problems, a decision can be taken by a strategic planning.
Efrain Turban, Dorothy Leidner, Ephraim McLean, James Wetherbe(2005) – “Knowledge Management initiatives focus on identifying knowledge, explicating it in such a way that it can be shared in a formal manner and leveraging its value through reuse”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion is similar to Wiig (1997), and is suggested in different way.
Walter Baets (2005) - “…a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of knower’s. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repository but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms”.
Reflection/Opinion- The above suggestion is acceptable, because he has mentioned how individuals knowledge to build up a framework and how that framework can bring a new experience in the organization to enhance the organizational goals and also he has mentioned that KM process is routine function in the organization.
Ouintas et al. (1997) – “KM is to discover, develop, utilize, deliver, and absorb knowledge inside and outside the organization through an appropriate management process to meet current and future needs”
Reflection/Opinion – The above suggestion is acceptable because, he has mentioned the core concept of KM. he has explained how that KM should be in the organizations.
Allee (1997), Davenport (1998) , Alavi and Leidner (2001) - KM is managing the corporation’s knowledge through a systematically and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing, sustaining, applying, sharing and renewing both the tacit and explicit knowledge of employees to enhance organizational performance and create value
Reflection/Opinion – The above definition also similar to Allee, Wiig. This definition is acceptable in all the condition. He also has mentioned how the many of individual’s knowledge are converted to tacit to explicit knowledge and also how that knowledge’s are shared within and outside the organizations.
Zack (1999a:125) - “The most important context for guiding knowledge management is the
Firm’s strategy”
Reflection/Opinion – This suggestion is acceptable because the KM strategies varies depend on the organizational goals, environment, politics, economy of the organization.
Many authors have suggested their view of knowledge management in different ways. However I found that some suggestions are having similarities within them. After I read these definitions I thought there is no one definition to define the term of KM, in the next sections I would like to discuss my view of knowledge management with some real life examples.
3.2. Criticize with real life situations.
I would like to give some real world situation where I applied and applying KM.
In my job as a Management Information Systems Office at the United Nations in Sri Lanka, I had to do a survey to help the people who were affected by Tsunami and War to develop their life standard. In order to provide a high level of service I collected a very detailed data about all the affected families. (Data)
I used the collected data to make a detailed report which given a summarised information to the project team. (Information)
The project team went through the submitted report and learned thoroughly and came to the conclusion what steps this project should have and in what ways the families should be helped. (Knowledge)
Based on what they learned from the report they categorised the families into different groups according to their family capacity, needs, and ability. For example some families had enough man power but not the capital, and some families had capitals but not the man power or skilled to do a micro level job. (Knowledge Management)
At the end the families were given aid by the United Nations to full fill their need according to what they needed. Some families were given skilled training, some were provided equipments, and some were given some financial aid to successfully achieve the aim of the project. (Knowledge Management)
I could give another example how the knowledge is managed in real world in my employment experience. When I worked for the United Nation Development Projects in Sri Lanka, our team designed a database to maintain project related data, and was able to access by the other government, non government, and private sectors. About after two months of the database access, the secretaries of the other organizations came up with some suggestions which were proposed in their organizations to modify the existing database to collect more data. Our team learned the proposal of each organization and their needs of the additional data, decided to modify the database to fulfil their requirements. In this case the database modification proposal from the organizations is the knowledge for our team, and the process of re-modification and maintenance of the database is the knowledge management.
When I came to UK, I just visited some supermarkets to buy my day to day items such as Produce, groceries, Toiletries, and cosmetics, and I found that some supermarket prices are cheaper than other supermarkets. For example Asda and Tesco are selling the quality items in reasonable price. But, by the time I found out that the toiletries and cosmetic items are cheaper at Boots and Superdrug, and are giving more offers. By analysing these price and quality I started to do shopping in Asda and Tesco for Produce, and groceries. For Toiletries, and cosmetics I used Superdrug and Boots instead of doing shopping at Sainsbury and Marks & Spenser. So, the knowledge which I learned from my shopping history is helping me to buy things with better quality in reasonable price, and to save some pennies. Therefore I think in my view; “The knowledge management is a systematically structured processed knowledge; this structured knowledge enables efficiently and dynamically to solve the problems, to take the strategic plans. And also it is a good decision maker within the organization or outside the organization or in individual mind”.
3.3. Conclusion
Application of Knowledge Management is essential for today’s business enterprises and day to day’s life to achieve the goals effectively. Therefore, the better use of knowledge management would maximize benefit of the organization or an individual. An effectively shared or organised KM or a new KM would provide dynamics for effectively solving problems, enabling innovation, and provide the environment for continuous process and product improvement.
3.4. References
Stankosky M. (2005) Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research, Elsevier
Rao M. (2005) Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques: Practitioners and Experts Evaluate Knowledge Management Solutions, Elsevier
Walter Baets (2005), Knowledge Management and Management Learning: Extending the Horizons of Knowledge– Based Management.
Efrain Turban, Dorithy Leidner, Ephraim McLean, James Wetherbe, (2005): information technology for management Transforming Organizations in the Digital Economy, 5th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 0-471-705225
Laudon, KC and Laudon, JP (2004): Management Information Systems, Managing the Digital Firm, 10th Edition, Prince-Hall, ISBN-0-13-120681-8
Allee, V. (1997), “Twelve principles of knowledge management”, Training&Development, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 71-4.
Davenport, T., De Long, D. and Beers, M. (1998), “Successful knowledge management projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, J. (1998), “If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-65.
This article is to discuss about the definition of knowledge management (KM), and I would like to analyse some of the existing definitions of the Knowledge Management in literature view, and based upon I would like to discuss the definition of knowledge management with some real life examples which will illustrate the definition of knowledge management in my view.
3.1. Analysis and of knowledge management (KM) in literature view
Peter Drucker – “The key to unlocking the value of information and knowledge is “action,” that is, it must be dynamic”.
Reflection/Opinion- this suggestion is giving the part of application of the KM, but as mentioned in the suggestion, the action taken must be dynamic. So, in my view this suggestion is not a fully expressing the KM but partially acceptable as he did not mention about the managing the knowledge.
Liebowitz (1999) – “The active and dynamic implementation and management of knowledge are critical to enabling organizational performance enhancements, problem solving, decision making, and teaching”
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion can be fully acceptable in my view, because as the author has mentioned active and dynamic implementation and knowledge of management are important in achieving the organizational target.
Wiig (1997) – “KM is the systematic, explicit, and deliberate building, renewal, and application of knowledge to maximize an enterprises knowledge-related effectiveness and returns from its knowledge assets”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion is acceptable because he has mentioned the core concepts of KM, and how that the KM can lead to enhance the organizational goals.
O’Dell (1996) – “KM applies systematic approaches to find, understand, and use knowledge to create value”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion is also similar to Liebowitz (1999), but has said in short and sweet. As the application of KM in an organization is to create a value and to achieve its objectives, I can suggest that this suggestion is an acceptable.
Leonard (1995) – “The processes and terminology associated with KM often sound abstract, only hype, or simply new “management verbiage”; however; it is concrete, practical, and profoundly important”.
Reflection/Opinion- According to my view this suggestion is very difficult to understand. But he did not mention the systematic processes are in the KM, he has only mentioned the process and terminology also he is saying also sound abstract, how is it possible in the entire organizational environment? May be KM should be in theory in some working environment. Also he has mentioned that is a concrete, practical and profoundly important I agree this concept.
Stacey (2002)- “Knowledge Management is not possible, only possible to manage people, and create framework for communication”.
Reflection/Opinion- The above suggestion is not fully acceptable, because he has only mentioned KM is possible in some circumstances, in my question is how he can say that the KM is only applicable for manage people and create a frame work for communication? Why that the KM is possible for apply to produce a product or may be applying for day to day life…?
Laudon, KC and Laudon (2004) – “KM is a process that helps organizations identify, select, organize, disseminate and transfer important information and expertise, that are part of the organizations memory and that typically reside within the organization in an unstructured manner”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion not fully acceptable in my view. He has mentioned simply it is a process but how it is systematically process the knowledge in an organization. But he has suggested that memory is in the organization in unstructured manner. That is not acceptable because the basic concept of the KM is a structured systematic process. Her suggestion has partially acceptable in some condition not suitable at all conditions.
Laudon, KC and Laudon (2004) – “The structuring of knowledge enables effective and efficient problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision making”.
Reflection/Opinion- He has suggested her view of KM excellently, because an organizational goal can be achieved by solving the problems efficiently, and learning the new thinks from previously faced problems and experience. By dynamically learning previous problems, a decision can be taken by a strategic planning.
Efrain Turban, Dorothy Leidner, Ephraim McLean, James Wetherbe(2005) – “Knowledge Management initiatives focus on identifying knowledge, explicating it in such a way that it can be shared in a formal manner and leveraging its value through reuse”.
Reflection/Opinion- This suggestion is similar to Wiig (1997), and is suggested in different way.
Walter Baets (2005) - “…a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of knower’s. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repository but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms”.
Reflection/Opinion- The above suggestion is acceptable, because he has mentioned how individuals knowledge to build up a framework and how that framework can bring a new experience in the organization to enhance the organizational goals and also he has mentioned that KM process is routine function in the organization.
Ouintas et al. (1997) – “KM is to discover, develop, utilize, deliver, and absorb knowledge inside and outside the organization through an appropriate management process to meet current and future needs”
Reflection/Opinion – The above suggestion is acceptable because, he has mentioned the core concept of KM. he has explained how that KM should be in the organizations.
Allee (1997), Davenport (1998) , Alavi and Leidner (2001) - KM is managing the corporation’s knowledge through a systematically and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing, sustaining, applying, sharing and renewing both the tacit and explicit knowledge of employees to enhance organizational performance and create value
Reflection/Opinion – The above definition also similar to Allee, Wiig. This definition is acceptable in all the condition. He also has mentioned how the many of individual’s knowledge are converted to tacit to explicit knowledge and also how that knowledge’s are shared within and outside the organizations.
Zack (1999a:125) - “The most important context for guiding knowledge management is the
Firm’s strategy”
Reflection/Opinion – This suggestion is acceptable because the KM strategies varies depend on the organizational goals, environment, politics, economy of the organization.
Many authors have suggested their view of knowledge management in different ways. However I found that some suggestions are having similarities within them. After I read these definitions I thought there is no one definition to define the term of KM, in the next sections I would like to discuss my view of knowledge management with some real life examples.
3.2. Criticize with real life situations.
I would like to give some real world situation where I applied and applying KM.
In my job as a Management Information Systems Office at the United Nations in Sri Lanka, I had to do a survey to help the people who were affected by Tsunami and War to develop their life standard. In order to provide a high level of service I collected a very detailed data about all the affected families. (Data)
I used the collected data to make a detailed report which given a summarised information to the project team. (Information)
The project team went through the submitted report and learned thoroughly and came to the conclusion what steps this project should have and in what ways the families should be helped. (Knowledge)
Based on what they learned from the report they categorised the families into different groups according to their family capacity, needs, and ability. For example some families had enough man power but not the capital, and some families had capitals but not the man power or skilled to do a micro level job. (Knowledge Management)
At the end the families were given aid by the United Nations to full fill their need according to what they needed. Some families were given skilled training, some were provided equipments, and some were given some financial aid to successfully achieve the aim of the project. (Knowledge Management)
I could give another example how the knowledge is managed in real world in my employment experience. When I worked for the United Nation Development Projects in Sri Lanka, our team designed a database to maintain project related data, and was able to access by the other government, non government, and private sectors. About after two months of the database access, the secretaries of the other organizations came up with some suggestions which were proposed in their organizations to modify the existing database to collect more data. Our team learned the proposal of each organization and their needs of the additional data, decided to modify the database to fulfil their requirements. In this case the database modification proposal from the organizations is the knowledge for our team, and the process of re-modification and maintenance of the database is the knowledge management.
When I came to UK, I just visited some supermarkets to buy my day to day items such as Produce, groceries, Toiletries, and cosmetics, and I found that some supermarket prices are cheaper than other supermarkets. For example Asda and Tesco are selling the quality items in reasonable price. But, by the time I found out that the toiletries and cosmetic items are cheaper at Boots and Superdrug, and are giving more offers. By analysing these price and quality I started to do shopping in Asda and Tesco for Produce, and groceries. For Toiletries, and cosmetics I used Superdrug and Boots instead of doing shopping at Sainsbury and Marks & Spenser. So, the knowledge which I learned from my shopping history is helping me to buy things with better quality in reasonable price, and to save some pennies. Therefore I think in my view; “The knowledge management is a systematically structured processed knowledge; this structured knowledge enables efficiently and dynamically to solve the problems, to take the strategic plans. And also it is a good decision maker within the organization or outside the organization or in individual mind”.
3.3. Conclusion
Application of Knowledge Management is essential for today’s business enterprises and day to day’s life to achieve the goals effectively. Therefore, the better use of knowledge management would maximize benefit of the organization or an individual. An effectively shared or organised KM or a new KM would provide dynamics for effectively solving problems, enabling innovation, and provide the environment for continuous process and product improvement.
3.4. References
Stankosky M. (2005) Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research, Elsevier
Rao M. (2005) Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques: Practitioners and Experts Evaluate Knowledge Management Solutions, Elsevier
Walter Baets (2005), Knowledge Management and Management Learning: Extending the Horizons of Knowledge– Based Management.
Efrain Turban, Dorithy Leidner, Ephraim McLean, James Wetherbe, (2005): information technology for management Transforming Organizations in the Digital Economy, 5th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 0-471-705225
Laudon, KC and Laudon, JP (2004): Management Information Systems, Managing the Digital Firm, 10th Edition, Prince-Hall, ISBN-0-13-120681-8
Allee, V. (1997), “Twelve principles of knowledge management”, Training&Development, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 71-4.
Davenport, T., De Long, D. and Beers, M. (1998), “Successful knowledge management projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, J. (1998), “If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-65.
Sunday 15 February 2009
Nonaka's SECI Model
Article 1:Introduction to Nonaka's (SECI) Model
This article is about to discuss and evaluate the Nonaka’s SECI Model. This SECI Model is widely accepted by organization of knowledge creation process. The purpose of this article is to criticise Nonaka’s SECI Model with real life situations.
Before the analysis of the Nonaka’s SECI Model, I would like to explain about two types of knowledge’s, the author used in her knowledge creation model.
Tacit Knowledge: It means the person who has the knowledge internally. It means he has got the knowledge from the experience. So, I could say that this is the one called Internal Knowledge.
Explicit Knowledge: It means the person, who will get the knowledge from out side the environment. So, I could say that this is what called External knowledge.
1. Introduction to SECI Model
Lkujiro Nonaka and Hirakata Takeuvchi (1995), proposed a model of the knowledge creation process to understand the dynamic nature of knowledge creation and how to manage the process effectively within the organization. They proposed four steps of knowledge creation called SECI model. The SECI stand for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization;
Socialization – “Sharing and creating tacit knowledge through direct experience.” (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
Reflection: The person, who gaining the knowledge with direct interaction with other people, Eg: Within the Buffalo group each members are sharing their tacit knowledge.
Externalization – “Articulating tacit knowledge through dialogue and reflection”. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
Reflection: During the communication a person’s tacit knowledge is understood by other personals. It means that tacit knowledge of a person is converted or transformed into explicit knowledge.
Eg: The Buffalo organization members having discussion with AEGIS organization, the knowledge of Buffalo organization would be the External Knowledge to other AEGIS organization and vice versa.
Combination –“Systemizing and applying explicit knowledge and information”. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
Reflection: Collected explicit knowledge and Information from outside the organization are combined systematically and applied to their organization. It means the explicit knowledge converted into explicit knowledge.
Eg: The knowledge which I gathered from the various journals and books are applied in my articles in this Blog.
Internalization – “Learning and acquiring new tacit knowledge in practice”. (Nonaka and Takeuvchi, 1995)
Reflection: A person is getting the knowledge from various experiences. It means that explicit knowledge gathered by a person by reading, listening, observing, etc…, is converted into tacit knowledge.
Eg: Reading journals, listening lectures, watching news gives me knowledge.
2. Criticism of Nonaka's SECI Model
Before criticising about Nonaka’s views, I would like to discuss some criticisms given by different authors for Nonaka’s SECI Model;
Gourlay (2006) argues that combination and internalization appear to be ambiguous notions that conflate knowledge creation and transfer in Nonaka’s theory.
Kodama, Guerrieri and Pietrobelli, (2004,2005, 2007),they implemented SECI model in the firms based on their research says; “there is no general unique way of creating knowledge because although the underlying processes could be always the same industry, country and / or cluster considerations sculpt organizational learning, and even these contextual conditions face ongoing evolution and change”.
Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001), “for example, show that each of the SECI modes is dependent on the presence of appropriate task characteristics and these characteristic unknown”.
Engestrom’s (1999), “Discovery that problem finding is an important part of innovation missing from the SECI model”.
Criticism for Nonaka’s SECI Model in my view
In some situations an expert in a particular job will have difficulties in expressing his/her knowledge of experience as they do not have a good art of teaching.
In some organization like NASA, FBI, and some criminal detectives, the staff members are not allowed to share their expertise with other members of organization due to security and confidentiality purpose. So the knowledge of an organization is not allowed to transform into all process of SECI model.
In my first example Socialization is limited to certain extent. In my second examples Externalization is limited or not applicable, but Socialization process will take place as the knowledge sharing is allowed within the organization.
Some leading companies such as Unilever do not share their knowledge of manufacturing with the other similar companies due to competition of capturing the market. Here Externalization knowledge is not used or restricted to a certain extent.
Patent of an invention by a person or a particular organization restricts or limits the transformation of knowledge or information from a person or from an organization to another organization. In this example SECI model is partly applicable.
Nonaka’s Knowledge Management Model (1995) is mostly discussed based on Japanese working environment. But different countries have different employment culture.
E.g. in Japanese working environment they tend to work in the same organisation for a long period, but in Sri Lanka, people change their jobs frequently, especially in private sector. This type of situations creates problems in the Socialization process, because when people employed in new organization they get their knowledge from direct superior in the working environment. If people keep changing their jobs frequently, the Socialization process will not workout or not gives a success in the organization knowledge creation.
3. Applying SECI Model to My Past Employment
In Sri Lanka when I worked at the government sectors I observed that most of the staff do not share their knowledge with their colleague and they hesitate to do, because of getting higher position in the office. As I joined a junior staff I had to see many colleagues to get simple information to carry out a single task. So in my view socialization process is not fully applicable for this type of organization.
Another thing I observed at government sector is that staffs do not like to socialise with the other organization compare to private sectors. The reason I could say that the private sectors management mainly aim to maximize their profit, but the government sectors just provide service rather than aiming the profit. Therefore the private sectors arrange many joint projects and staff training joined with other organizations. Here Nonaka’s of Externalization process is very rarely applicable at government sectors than private sectors.
Also I would like to discuss another example that in government sectors staffs don’t like innovative ideas coming into the organization. And also they don’t like to apply those innovative ideas in the organizations. For example when I was working at the United Nations in Sri Lanaka, I have been requested to collect and interpret disseminating data within all government, non-government, and private sectors. I maintained a database call Coordination and Planning Systems (CAPS) to all government, non government, and private sectors and allowed to access all the data. And also I had to conduct training for all the staff how to update and access database.
As I observed in this job, private and non government sectors quickly adapted to the system and gave feed back every month but, the government sector did not adapt and response quickly and they faced difficulties to do the task routine basis.
If the government organization cannot apply new innovative ideas in a routine basis even after training, how Nonaka’s knowledge creation process could be applicable in this case?
Another situation I could say is, when I worked at the UN in Sri Lanka, I visited Tsunami and war affected areas with some foreign aid workers. Mostly people in rural areas are shy and hesitate to have conversation with foreign aid workers, and also they could not speak English. So my question is how SECI model is applicable for knowledge creation process in this situation?
4. Conclusion
All four knowledge creation process of the SECI model could completely applicable in very rare situations, but in my experience and my learned knowledge I could conclude that the complete application of SECI model to an organization is not acceptable, but possible to apply partially. There are so many factors such as organization culture, language, competition, security, confidentiality of data, etc.., are influencing the successful application of SECI model.
5. References
Haghirian P., (2003). Does Culture Really Matter? Cultural Influences on the Knowledge Transfer Process within Multinational Corporations
Hamel G., Doz Y. and Prahalad C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors, and win.
Harvard Business Review, 67 (2)
Gregorio Martin-de-Castro, Pedro Lopez-Saez and Jose E.Navas-Lopez. (2007). Process of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical evidence from Boston’s Route 128 and Spain.
Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995), "The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation", Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. 1966, The tacit Dimension, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.
Tom De Geytere (2007), "Unified model of dynamic organisational knowledge creation"
from http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html
This article is about to discuss and evaluate the Nonaka’s SECI Model. This SECI Model is widely accepted by organization of knowledge creation process. The purpose of this article is to criticise Nonaka’s SECI Model with real life situations.
Before the analysis of the Nonaka’s SECI Model, I would like to explain about two types of knowledge’s, the author used in her knowledge creation model.
Tacit Knowledge: It means the person who has the knowledge internally. It means he has got the knowledge from the experience. So, I could say that this is the one called Internal Knowledge.
Explicit Knowledge: It means the person, who will get the knowledge from out side the environment. So, I could say that this is what called External knowledge.
1. Introduction to SECI Model
Lkujiro Nonaka and Hirakata Takeuvchi (1995), proposed a model of the knowledge creation process to understand the dynamic nature of knowledge creation and how to manage the process effectively within the organization. They proposed four steps of knowledge creation called SECI model. The SECI stand for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization;
Socialization – “Sharing and creating tacit knowledge through direct experience.” (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
Reflection: The person, who gaining the knowledge with direct interaction with other people, Eg: Within the Buffalo group each members are sharing their tacit knowledge.
Externalization – “Articulating tacit knowledge through dialogue and reflection”. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
Reflection: During the communication a person’s tacit knowledge is understood by other personals. It means that tacit knowledge of a person is converted or transformed into explicit knowledge.
Eg: The Buffalo organization members having discussion with AEGIS organization, the knowledge of Buffalo organization would be the External Knowledge to other AEGIS organization and vice versa.
Combination –“Systemizing and applying explicit knowledge and information”. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
Reflection: Collected explicit knowledge and Information from outside the organization are combined systematically and applied to their organization. It means the explicit knowledge converted into explicit knowledge.
Eg: The knowledge which I gathered from the various journals and books are applied in my articles in this Blog.
Internalization – “Learning and acquiring new tacit knowledge in practice”. (Nonaka and Takeuvchi, 1995)
Reflection: A person is getting the knowledge from various experiences. It means that explicit knowledge gathered by a person by reading, listening, observing, etc…, is converted into tacit knowledge.
Eg: Reading journals, listening lectures, watching news gives me knowledge.
2. Criticism of Nonaka's SECI Model
Before criticising about Nonaka’s views, I would like to discuss some criticisms given by different authors for Nonaka’s SECI Model;
Gourlay (2006) argues that combination and internalization appear to be ambiguous notions that conflate knowledge creation and transfer in Nonaka’s theory.
Kodama, Guerrieri and Pietrobelli, (2004,2005, 2007),they implemented SECI model in the firms based on their research says; “there is no general unique way of creating knowledge because although the underlying processes could be always the same industry, country and / or cluster considerations sculpt organizational learning, and even these contextual conditions face ongoing evolution and change”.
Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001), “for example, show that each of the SECI modes is dependent on the presence of appropriate task characteristics and these characteristic unknown”.
Engestrom’s (1999), “Discovery that problem finding is an important part of innovation missing from the SECI model”.
Criticism for Nonaka’s SECI Model in my view
In some situations an expert in a particular job will have difficulties in expressing his/her knowledge of experience as they do not have a good art of teaching.
In some organization like NASA, FBI, and some criminal detectives, the staff members are not allowed to share their expertise with other members of organization due to security and confidentiality purpose. So the knowledge of an organization is not allowed to transform into all process of SECI model.
In my first example Socialization is limited to certain extent. In my second examples Externalization is limited or not applicable, but Socialization process will take place as the knowledge sharing is allowed within the organization.
Some leading companies such as Unilever do not share their knowledge of manufacturing with the other similar companies due to competition of capturing the market. Here Externalization knowledge is not used or restricted to a certain extent.
Patent of an invention by a person or a particular organization restricts or limits the transformation of knowledge or information from a person or from an organization to another organization. In this example SECI model is partly applicable.
Nonaka’s Knowledge Management Model (1995) is mostly discussed based on Japanese working environment. But different countries have different employment culture.
E.g. in Japanese working environment they tend to work in the same organisation for a long period, but in Sri Lanka, people change their jobs frequently, especially in private sector. This type of situations creates problems in the Socialization process, because when people employed in new organization they get their knowledge from direct superior in the working environment. If people keep changing their jobs frequently, the Socialization process will not workout or not gives a success in the organization knowledge creation.
3. Applying SECI Model to My Past Employment
In Sri Lanka when I worked at the government sectors I observed that most of the staff do not share their knowledge with their colleague and they hesitate to do, because of getting higher position in the office. As I joined a junior staff I had to see many colleagues to get simple information to carry out a single task. So in my view socialization process is not fully applicable for this type of organization.
Another thing I observed at government sector is that staffs do not like to socialise with the other organization compare to private sectors. The reason I could say that the private sectors management mainly aim to maximize their profit, but the government sectors just provide service rather than aiming the profit. Therefore the private sectors arrange many joint projects and staff training joined with other organizations. Here Nonaka’s of Externalization process is very rarely applicable at government sectors than private sectors.
Also I would like to discuss another example that in government sectors staffs don’t like innovative ideas coming into the organization. And also they don’t like to apply those innovative ideas in the organizations. For example when I was working at the United Nations in Sri Lanaka, I have been requested to collect and interpret disseminating data within all government, non-government, and private sectors. I maintained a database call Coordination and Planning Systems (CAPS) to all government, non government, and private sectors and allowed to access all the data. And also I had to conduct training for all the staff how to update and access database.
As I observed in this job, private and non government sectors quickly adapted to the system and gave feed back every month but, the government sector did not adapt and response quickly and they faced difficulties to do the task routine basis.
If the government organization cannot apply new innovative ideas in a routine basis even after training, how Nonaka’s knowledge creation process could be applicable in this case?
Another situation I could say is, when I worked at the UN in Sri Lanka, I visited Tsunami and war affected areas with some foreign aid workers. Mostly people in rural areas are shy and hesitate to have conversation with foreign aid workers, and also they could not speak English. So my question is how SECI model is applicable for knowledge creation process in this situation?
4. Conclusion
All four knowledge creation process of the SECI model could completely applicable in very rare situations, but in my experience and my learned knowledge I could conclude that the complete application of SECI model to an organization is not acceptable, but possible to apply partially. There are so many factors such as organization culture, language, competition, security, confidentiality of data, etc.., are influencing the successful application of SECI model.
5. References
Haghirian P., (2003). Does Culture Really Matter? Cultural Influences on the Knowledge Transfer Process within Multinational Corporations
Hamel G., Doz Y. and Prahalad C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors, and win.
Harvard Business Review, 67 (2)
Gregorio Martin-de-Castro, Pedro Lopez-Saez and Jose E.Navas-Lopez. (2007). Process of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical evidence from Boston’s Route 128 and Spain.
Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995), "The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation", Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. 1966, The tacit Dimension, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.
Tom De Geytere (2007), "Unified model of dynamic organisational knowledge creation"
from http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html
Wednesday 11 February 2009
Definition of Data,Information and Knowledge (DIK)
Article 2:Understanding the terms Data, Information, Knowledge and their relationships
This article is to discuss the terms of Data, Information, Knowledge and their inter-relationship with some authors view and my real life examples.
2.1. Analysis of Data, Information and Knowledge in literature
Data, Information, and Knowledge are the fundamental concepts in the creation of knowledge management in the organizational achievements. Further, these three valuable concepts are the capital and communication facts in an organization. Below I would like to review some author’s view about DIK;
Kogut and Zander (1992) – They have suggested information as “knowledge which can be
transmitted without loss of integrity”
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion cannot be fully accepted because, when knowledge transmitted through many knowledgeable people, it could be interpreted with some added knowledge of the person who passes the original knowledge to others.
Wiig (1993) – He has suggested that the information as, “facts organized to describe a situation or condition. Also he has suggested that the knowledge as “the truths, beliefs, perspectives judgements, know-how and methodologies”
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion accepted because collected facts giving a meaningful message with some condition and situation. According to Wiig view about knowledge, the knowledge should be gained by each person through above conditions.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) – They have suggested information as, “a flow of meaningful messages”, and knowledge as “commitments and beliefs created from these messages”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable because, in fact information is outcomes of the process of some facts, and based on this information all commitments are taken.
Andrew P.Garvin (1996) – He has suggested that “data organized to become information” and “information put into context to become knowledge”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable because, organized data should be reflect the information also that information which is put it into a framework that reflect the knowledge.
Allie (1997) – He suggest that “data float in a larger sea of information, and data become information through linking and organizing with other data. Information becomes knowledge when it is analyzed, linked to other information, and compared with what is already known”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could not fully acceptable because, he suggest about data that is acceptable but he suggest that the data’s linking with other data’s that create the information how it is possible e.g.: 1 + abcd is it giving any information here? So that it not acceptable. Also he has suggested that information linked to other information to create knowledge. How is it possible the entire situation? In my view I could say that meaning full relevant information linked to create a concept, through that concept knowledge should be reflected.
Spek and Spijkervet (1997) – They have suggested the “data is not yet interpreted symbols”, information is “data with meaning” also they suggested “knowledge is the ability to assign meaning”.
Reflection/Opinion- this suggestion fully acceptable in all condition and situation. According to Nonaka and Andrew concept are similar to Spek and Spijkervet.
Davenport (1997) – He has suggested that the data is “simple observations”, information is “data with relevance and purpose” and knowledge is “valuable information from the human mind”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could not fully acceptable because, the definition about information and knowledge are acceptable but how can he say like data as simple observation? Some times that simple observation should be give a meaning in some short of condition and situation.
Debra M.Amidon (1997) –He has suggested the data is “elements of analysis” and “information is data with context” and knowledge is “information with meaning”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable, similar to Nonaka, Andrew and Spek.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) – They have suggested data is a “set of discrete facts”, information is “a message meant to change the receiver’s perception” and knowledge is “Experiences, values, insights, and contextual information”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable, similar to Nonaka, Andrew and Spek.
Choo (1998) – He has suggested information as a “subjective construction created primarily in the mind of the user”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could not be acceptable in all real situations because he has mentioned only the person.
Tuomi (1999) - He has defined that “data emerge as a result of adding value to information”, and also “knowledge that has been structured and verbalised”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Quigley and Debons (1999) – They have suggested to data, “the text is not answer questions to particular problems” and “information is the text that answers the questions who, when, what or where” also he suggest to “knowledge as a text that answers the questions why and how”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Frances Horibe (1990) – “knowledge is a body of information, technique and experience that coalesce around the particular subject”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Choo et al. (2000) – They have suggested that the “data is facts and messages” and “information is data vested with meaning” and the “knowledge is Justified, true beliefs”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations. This definition is similar to Nonaka, Andrew and Spek.
Nancy.M.Dixon (2000) – He has suggested data that is “information”… that is, data that has been stored, analysed and displayed and is communicated through spoken language, graphic displays and numeric values” and knowledge “as a meaningful links, people make in their minds between information and its application in action in a specific setting”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Juris and Kelley (2002) – They have suggested the “data is comprised of the basic unrefined and generally unfiltered information” and “information is much more refined data that has evolved to the point of being useful for some form of analysis” and “knowledge is resides in the user happens only when human experienced and insight is applied to data and information” .
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Ellis (2003) – He defined the DIK as, that “data represent facts”, “which are organized into information; when used to by some one to solve a problem”, and “information in turn becomes personal knowledge”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in some real situations.
The above definition given by deferent authors defined a common differentiation to data, information and knowledge. They are defined with each other, e.g. information is defined in terms of data and / or knowledge, and knowledge is defined in terms of information.
2.2. Critical Analysis of Data, Information, Knowledge (DIK)
To my observation the author’s defined the term for data is same concept. Because they defined data is like a “Facts”, “no meaning full messages”, “symbols”, “elements”, “a set of discrete values” and “not interpreted”. Therefore in my view the data can be defined as, “data is a set of plain facts”.
To my observation the author’s defined the term for information is same concept. Because they defined information is like a
“Flow of meaningful message”, “Context”, “Data with relevance and purpose”. Therefore in my view the information can be defined as, “meaningful message”.
To define the term Knowledge, the above mentioned author’s defined the term for knowledge is a “Why and how”, “Know how”, “Justified, true belief”, “Commitment and belief”, “Truth and beliefs” and “judgments” some thing that connected with the human minds. Therefore in my view Knowledge can be defined as, “processed in the mind of individual”.
Below I like to discuss the term DIK with some example, when the reader can easy to understand;
Eg: - Wetherbe (2006), A map giving detailed driving directions from one location to another could be considered data. An up to the minute traffic bulletin along the freeway that indicates a traffic slowdown due to construction could be considered information. Awareness of the alternative, back roads route could be considered knowledge. In this case map is considered data, because it does not contain current relevant information that affects the driving time and conditions from one location to other. However, having the current conditions as information is useful only of the individual has knowledge that will enable him or her to turn away the construction zone. The implication is that knowledge has strong practical and reflective elements that distinguish it from information in a given context. Having knowledge implies that can be to solve a problem, whereas having information does not carry the same suggestion. An ability to act is an integral part of being knowledgeable. For example two people in the same context with the same information may not have the same degree of success. Hence there is a difference in the human capability to add value. The differences in ability may be due to differences in experiences, training, and perspective and so on. While data, information and knowledge may all be viewed as assets of an organization, knowledge provide a higher level of meaning about data and information. It conveys meaning and hence tends to be much more valuable, yet more ephemeral.
2.2.1. Inter-Relationship between Data, Information and Knowledge
Data<----------->Information<----------------->Knowledge
Data, Information, and Knowledge also have cyclic relationship between them. The above diagram illustrates the cyclic relationship between them. To understand the relationship between information and knowledge is to know where the information is being located. However, information resides in the storage Medias in the form of data or it may be in the human mind as knowledge. If this case, then the overlap between data and information vis-à-vis information and knowledge becomes clear, this also explains many perceive data and information, as well as information and knowledge as interchangeable. “One man’s data can be another man’s knowledge, and vice versa, depending on context” (Stewart, 2002). However, they are not interchangeable in terms of their accepted distinct definitions.
Below I would like to discuss these inter relationship with DIK some real life example
2.3. Reflection from Practice
1) When I was working at the United Nations in Sri Lanka, I conducted survey to collect data and to get a conclusion to provide assistance to the people who were affected by Tsunami and war. As it was a real situation in my job, I can apply KM in the way I got the final decision to assist the victims.
Data collected by survey was processed and a final report was prepared. From the final report a team came to the conclusion to provide the assistant to the victims.
Data – facts from the survey
E.g.: No of families, no of disabilities, no of male, no of female, total no of families the division
Information- a prepared report
E.g.: Name of the DS division, total number of damaged tanks, total number of damaged culverts, and total number of damaged irrigation tanks….
Knowledge- the team learned what to do for the victims.
E.g.: the no of areas affected by war, the team was planning to implement, 5 tanks in a particular DS division, team was planning to construct 3 schools in another DS Division.
2.4. References
Davenport T.H. and Prusak L. 1998: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Stankosky M. (2005) Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research, Elsevier
Rao M. (2005) Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques: Practitioners and Experts Evaluate Knowledge Management Solutions, Elsevier
Nonaka, I., “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1994, pp. 14-37.
Wiig, K. M. (1993), Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About Thinking – How
People and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge, Schema Press,
Arlington, TX.
Tuomi, I., Corporate Knowledge, Metaxis, Helsinki, Finland, 1999.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘Knowledge of the Firm. Combinative Capabilities, and the
Replication of Technology’, Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 383-397.
Stenmark, D., “Leverage Tacit Organizational Knowledge”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 9-24.
This article is to discuss the terms of Data, Information, Knowledge and their inter-relationship with some authors view and my real life examples.
2.1. Analysis of Data, Information and Knowledge in literature
Data, Information, and Knowledge are the fundamental concepts in the creation of knowledge management in the organizational achievements. Further, these three valuable concepts are the capital and communication facts in an organization. Below I would like to review some author’s view about DIK;
Kogut and Zander (1992) – They have suggested information as “knowledge which can be
transmitted without loss of integrity”
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion cannot be fully accepted because, when knowledge transmitted through many knowledgeable people, it could be interpreted with some added knowledge of the person who passes the original knowledge to others.
Wiig (1993) – He has suggested that the information as, “facts organized to describe a situation or condition. Also he has suggested that the knowledge as “the truths, beliefs, perspectives judgements, know-how and methodologies”
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion accepted because collected facts giving a meaningful message with some condition and situation. According to Wiig view about knowledge, the knowledge should be gained by each person through above conditions.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) – They have suggested information as, “a flow of meaningful messages”, and knowledge as “commitments and beliefs created from these messages”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable because, in fact information is outcomes of the process of some facts, and based on this information all commitments are taken.
Andrew P.Garvin (1996) – He has suggested that “data organized to become information” and “information put into context to become knowledge”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable because, organized data should be reflect the information also that information which is put it into a framework that reflect the knowledge.
Allie (1997) – He suggest that “data float in a larger sea of information, and data become information through linking and organizing with other data. Information becomes knowledge when it is analyzed, linked to other information, and compared with what is already known”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could not fully acceptable because, he suggest about data that is acceptable but he suggest that the data’s linking with other data’s that create the information how it is possible e.g.: 1 + abcd is it giving any information here? So that it not acceptable. Also he has suggested that information linked to other information to create knowledge. How is it possible the entire situation? In my view I could say that meaning full relevant information linked to create a concept, through that concept knowledge should be reflected.
Spek and Spijkervet (1997) – They have suggested the “data is not yet interpreted symbols”, information is “data with meaning” also they suggested “knowledge is the ability to assign meaning”.
Reflection/Opinion- this suggestion fully acceptable in all condition and situation. According to Nonaka and Andrew concept are similar to Spek and Spijkervet.
Davenport (1997) – He has suggested that the data is “simple observations”, information is “data with relevance and purpose” and knowledge is “valuable information from the human mind”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could not fully acceptable because, the definition about information and knowledge are acceptable but how can he say like data as simple observation? Some times that simple observation should be give a meaning in some short of condition and situation.
Debra M.Amidon (1997) –He has suggested the data is “elements of analysis” and “information is data with context” and knowledge is “information with meaning”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable, similar to Nonaka, Andrew and Spek.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) – They have suggested data is a “set of discrete facts”, information is “a message meant to change the receiver’s perception” and knowledge is “Experiences, values, insights, and contextual information”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable, similar to Nonaka, Andrew and Spek.
Choo (1998) – He has suggested information as a “subjective construction created primarily in the mind of the user”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could not be acceptable in all real situations because he has mentioned only the person.
Tuomi (1999) - He has defined that “data emerge as a result of adding value to information”, and also “knowledge that has been structured and verbalised”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Quigley and Debons (1999) – They have suggested to data, “the text is not answer questions to particular problems” and “information is the text that answers the questions who, when, what or where” also he suggest to “knowledge as a text that answers the questions why and how”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Frances Horibe (1990) – “knowledge is a body of information, technique and experience that coalesce around the particular subject”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Choo et al. (2000) – They have suggested that the “data is facts and messages” and “information is data vested with meaning” and the “knowledge is Justified, true beliefs”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations. This definition is similar to Nonaka, Andrew and Spek.
Nancy.M.Dixon (2000) – He has suggested data that is “information”… that is, data that has been stored, analysed and displayed and is communicated through spoken language, graphic displays and numeric values” and knowledge “as a meaningful links, people make in their minds between information and its application in action in a specific setting”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Juris and Kelley (2002) – They have suggested the “data is comprised of the basic unrefined and generally unfiltered information” and “information is much more refined data that has evolved to the point of being useful for some form of analysis” and “knowledge is resides in the user happens only when human experienced and insight is applied to data and information” .
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in all real situations.
Ellis (2003) – He defined the DIK as, that “data represent facts”, “which are organized into information; when used to by some one to solve a problem”, and “information in turn becomes personal knowledge”.
Reflection/Opinion- In my view, this suggestion could be acceptable in some real situations.
The above definition given by deferent authors defined a common differentiation to data, information and knowledge. They are defined with each other, e.g. information is defined in terms of data and / or knowledge, and knowledge is defined in terms of information.
2.2. Critical Analysis of Data, Information, Knowledge (DIK)
To my observation the author’s defined the term for data is same concept. Because they defined data is like a “Facts”, “no meaning full messages”, “symbols”, “elements”, “a set of discrete values” and “not interpreted”. Therefore in my view the data can be defined as, “data is a set of plain facts”.
To my observation the author’s defined the term for information is same concept. Because they defined information is like a
“Flow of meaningful message”, “Context”, “Data with relevance and purpose”. Therefore in my view the information can be defined as, “meaningful message”.
To define the term Knowledge, the above mentioned author’s defined the term for knowledge is a “Why and how”, “Know how”, “Justified, true belief”, “Commitment and belief”, “Truth and beliefs” and “judgments” some thing that connected with the human minds. Therefore in my view Knowledge can be defined as, “processed in the mind of individual”.
Below I like to discuss the term DIK with some example, when the reader can easy to understand;
Eg: - Wetherbe (2006), A map giving detailed driving directions from one location to another could be considered data. An up to the minute traffic bulletin along the freeway that indicates a traffic slowdown due to construction could be considered information. Awareness of the alternative, back roads route could be considered knowledge. In this case map is considered data, because it does not contain current relevant information that affects the driving time and conditions from one location to other. However, having the current conditions as information is useful only of the individual has knowledge that will enable him or her to turn away the construction zone. The implication is that knowledge has strong practical and reflective elements that distinguish it from information in a given context. Having knowledge implies that can be to solve a problem, whereas having information does not carry the same suggestion. An ability to act is an integral part of being knowledgeable. For example two people in the same context with the same information may not have the same degree of success. Hence there is a difference in the human capability to add value. The differences in ability may be due to differences in experiences, training, and perspective and so on. While data, information and knowledge may all be viewed as assets of an organization, knowledge provide a higher level of meaning about data and information. It conveys meaning and hence tends to be much more valuable, yet more ephemeral.
2.2.1. Inter-Relationship between Data, Information and Knowledge
Data<----------->Information<----------------->Knowledge
Data, Information, and Knowledge also have cyclic relationship between them. The above diagram illustrates the cyclic relationship between them. To understand the relationship between information and knowledge is to know where the information is being located. However, information resides in the storage Medias in the form of data or it may be in the human mind as knowledge. If this case, then the overlap between data and information vis-à-vis information and knowledge becomes clear, this also explains many perceive data and information, as well as information and knowledge as interchangeable. “One man’s data can be another man’s knowledge, and vice versa, depending on context” (Stewart, 2002). However, they are not interchangeable in terms of their accepted distinct definitions.
Below I would like to discuss these inter relationship with DIK some real life example
2.3. Reflection from Practice
1) When I was working at the United Nations in Sri Lanka, I conducted survey to collect data and to get a conclusion to provide assistance to the people who were affected by Tsunami and war. As it was a real situation in my job, I can apply KM in the way I got the final decision to assist the victims.
Data collected by survey was processed and a final report was prepared. From the final report a team came to the conclusion to provide the assistant to the victims.
Data – facts from the survey
E.g.: No of families, no of disabilities, no of male, no of female, total no of families the division
Information- a prepared report
E.g.: Name of the DS division, total number of damaged tanks, total number of damaged culverts, and total number of damaged irrigation tanks….
Knowledge- the team learned what to do for the victims.
E.g.: the no of areas affected by war, the team was planning to implement, 5 tanks in a particular DS division, team was planning to construct 3 schools in another DS Division.
2.4. References
Davenport T.H. and Prusak L. 1998: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Stankosky M. (2005) Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research, Elsevier
Rao M. (2005) Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques: Practitioners and Experts Evaluate Knowledge Management Solutions, Elsevier
Nonaka, I., “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1994, pp. 14-37.
Wiig, K. M. (1993), Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About Thinking – How
People and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge, Schema Press,
Arlington, TX.
Tuomi, I., Corporate Knowledge, Metaxis, Helsinki, Finland, 1999.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), ‘Knowledge of the Firm. Combinative Capabilities, and the
Replication of Technology’, Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 383-397.
Stenmark, D., “Leverage Tacit Organizational Knowledge”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 9-24.
Friday 23 January 2009
Knowledge Management Life Cycle
The knowledge in a good Knowledgemanagement system is never finished because over time the environment changes the knowledge must be updated to reflect the changes.
Knowledge management life cycle have six steps, they are;
1.Create a knowledge: knowledge is created as people determine new ways of doing things.
2. Capure a knowledge: new knowledge must be identified as a valuable and be represented in a reasonable way.
3. Refine knowledge: new knowledge be placed in context so that can be actionable.
4. Store knowledge: useful knowledge must then be stored in a reasonable format whare the organization going to access.
5. Manage knowledge: Is like a library, the knowledge must be kept current.
6. Disseminate knowledge:knowledge must be useful format to anyone in the organization who need it anywhere any time.
References:Management Information Systems Managing the Ditital Firm,2006, Kenneth C.Laudon, Jane P.Laodon, 10th Edition[accessed on 20th January 2009]
Knowledge management life cycle have six steps, they are;
1.Create a knowledge: knowledge is created as people determine new ways of doing things.
2. Capure a knowledge: new knowledge must be identified as a valuable and be represented in a reasonable way.
3. Refine knowledge: new knowledge be placed in context so that can be actionable.
4. Store knowledge: useful knowledge must then be stored in a reasonable format whare the organization going to access.
5. Manage knowledge: Is like a library, the knowledge must be kept current.
6. Disseminate knowledge:knowledge must be useful format to anyone in the organization who need it anywhere any time.
References:Management Information Systems Managing the Ditital Firm,2006, Kenneth C.Laudon, Jane P.Laodon, 10th Edition[accessed on 20th January 2009]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)