Knowledge Management Models

There are various Knowledge Management Models and in this post I hope to successfully discuss the pros and cons of a model when implemented in an organisation.

But first, what is a model? Is it the same as a method?

A Model

Word net describes a model as a "Representation of something (sometimes on a smaller scale)"

A Method

American Heratige Dictionary describes a method as "The procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of knowledge: This field course gives an overview of archaeological method"

With these descriptions and the concept of Knowledge Management in mind it is understandable why the words are sometimes used interchangeably. My interpretation of the main differences between a method and a model is that a model only provides a general representation of a way to manage knowledge and is only usually an overview without going into onerous process detail. However in contrast a method does go into detail and tends to look into the procedures and techniques used in order to apply the model.

The model I have chosen to explore further is the modified version of Demerst's Knowledge Management Model.

Demarests model is described as a holistic model. That is, it looks at the functional and social relationships and transfers between knowledge processes as opposed to say Nonakas model which is termed as mechanistic in that it mainly addresses categorising knowledge and the scientific facts of knowledge management.

Demarests model believes that both scientific and social paradigms should be involved in the initial construction of knowledge. So organisations should be ensuring that when new piece of knowledge is created within the organisation it can be via explicit means e.g. research, training or developing as well as indirect means such as socially in work related forums or away days.

The solid arrows represent primary flows of knowledge and the non filled lines represent iterative flows. The primary flow of knowledge constructs, embodies, disseminates and uses knowledge specifically to the benefit of the organisation or employee.

What I particularly like about this model is that it is very people focused. It recognises the use of both tacit and explicit knowledge in the initial construction and the eventual use of this knowledge management model ultimately benefits both the business and the employee. However the solid and non filled arrows leave me somewhat confused. Do the non filled arrows mean that knowledge flows should not really happen via this route but do? Or that they are simply less important flows. And are the solid arrows the preferred method of knowledge movement?

References

model. (n.d.). WordNet® 3.0. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/model

methods. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/methods

Figure of modified version of Demerest's knowledge management model adapted from (McAdam & McCreedy, 1999)

Introduction to Knowledge Management

Literature & personal standpoint

Having searched through numerous journals, search engines and literature the varying opinions and terminology has made it difficult for me to obtain a definitive answer as to what Knowledge Management really is.

I have only come across one dictionary that has dared to try and define Knowledge Management, which is Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English. They define Knowledge Management as

‘The technologies involved in creating, disseminating, and utilizing knowledge data; also any enterprise involved in this’.

How exactly have they come to this conclusion if professors, Lecturers and Researchers that I have come across so far all seem to have differing positions to this? Why is technology in the definition? Surely knowledge can be managed without technology. With all of this inconsistency in mind, is Knowledge Management therefore whatever an organisation needs it to be and can knowledge really be managed?

(Rowley, 1999) cites Davenports et al. (1998) and their project based identification of “four different types of perspectives on knowledge management”

(1) To create knowledge repositories
(2) To improve knowledge access
(3) To enhance the knowledge environment
(4) To manage knowledge as an asset

With so many different perspectives in mind it is no wonder that is seems to be impossible to pin down a definitive definition of knowledge management.

However (Rowley, 1999) attempts to embrace all perspectives in one definition: “Knowledge Management is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organisation with a view to furthering the organisation’s objectives. The knowledge to be managed includes both explicit documented knowledge and tacit, subjective knowledge. Management entails all of those processes associated with the identification, sharing and creation of knowledge. This requires systems for the creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories, and to cultivate and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and organisational learning. Organisations that succeed in knowledge management are likely to view knowledge as an asset and to develop organisational norms and values, which support the creation and sharing of knowledge”

This is a very comprehensive and almost exhausting definition of knowledge management but it has captured all perspectives of knowledge management as mentioned above. Davenport seems to realise that managing knowledge as an asset should be the larger part of the definition of knowledge management if all of the other perspectives are too. The first three perspectives seem to equate to the fact that you are putting knowledge in the forefront of your organisational objectives if they are in place, thus it is important to you just like any other business asset. Managing knowledge as an asset seems to almost serve as an umbrella for the first three perspectives to come under.

(Rowley, 1999) cites Galagan (1997) in proposing to define Knowledge Management as a list of processes:

· Generating new knowledge
· Accessing knowledge from external sources
· Representing knowledge in documents, databases, software and so forth.
· Embedding knowledge in processes, products or services
· Transferring existing knowledge around an organisation
· Using accessible knowledge in decision making
· Facilitating knowledge growth through culture and incentives
· Measuring the value of knowledge assets and the impact of knowledge management

This definition is more useful in a practical sense and seems to capture all of the aspects of knowledge management. I would however add one more process. That is the optimisation of existing knowledge. This is different from generating new knowledge because this implies you are generating it from scratch which is never the case. You are always building upon what you already have constantly drawing from existing repositories of knowledge.

(Rowley, 1999) goes on to talk about knowledge management being implemented in the organisation. It is implied that knowledge is not being managed until it is encompassed across the whole organisation. However I do not agree with this. Knowledge Management can be implemented in partial and gradually and still referred to as knowledge management. It does not have to be as radical as ‘Knowledge as an asset’. The needs of the organisation need to be assessed and then knowledge management can be applied in project style phases.

(Rowley, 1999) cites Ernst & Young in two key roles of knowledge management:

· The database content manager is a subject matter expert who is responsible for the quality of the content; and
· The knowledge network co-ordinator is a consultant or coach to the people on the network, and their main role is to drive change in the way in which people do their jobs

I can see how these roles might get bundled into one as often the database manager is the only expert and so need to coach people who are plugged into this data network on how to use it to support their work.

To conclude I believe that there is no one definition for knowledge management. Knowledge management is whatever an organisation needs it to be within the realms of the identified perspectives and processes. However I can see how there may be creep on the perspectives and processes of knowledge management in the future as it is intertwined with other disciplines such as change management and information management.

Theory in Action

In HR we realised that we needed to enhance the knowledge environment and the quality of information that Managers, employees and HR have access to. That is knowledge about their employees for managers and knowledge about their staff records for employees. We had an employee database but we thought that what would better enhance this was a self service system. This is a system where the majority of the database entry is initiated by employees and then authorised by managers. This would significantly improve the quality of the data that HR had to refer to in order to support managers and employees and in addition empower employees and managers with information that they need at their finger tips. The system has been in pilot phase for the last year within the employee services teams. Upon login a manager is fed a dashboard like overview of alerts, forthcoming events such as employee birthdays, holidays employees are booked on to have and training they are due to attend. The manager is empowered with information from overview level to detailed information such as salary detail which they may need to know.

This system is acting as a knowledge portal for both managers and employees, transferring existing knowledge from the HR database around the organisation to managers and employees alike. Empowering managers with the information that they need to make decisions about their employees. This system is serving as an explicit knowledge repository which triggers tacit knowledge that an employee or manager should already have. For example, an employee’s career history or sickness absence history.

Reflection & Collective Learning

My initial impression of knowledge management was that I was unsure of what exactly it was, however in the first class discussion I was able to relate my understanding of it to ensuring that information does not leave the organisation with an employee. It seems that I was on the correct track as knowledge management is that and much more. Drawing upon the entire groups collective first impressions of knowledge management would probably define part of what it is to all of us.
A group discussion in the style of a knowledge cafe was a useful experience to me. I had never experienced or done little research on knowledge cafes before the day and therefore was not sure what to expect exactly. Aboubakr, our lecturer and facilitator explained that Knowledge Cafes involve a conversion of people from differing disciplines with a common interest of deliberation. Ours was Knowledge Management.

The hour long cafe panned out very smoothly. We assembled into approximately 4 groups of groups of 4-5 individuals to deliberate the best way to ensure there is NO knowledge management in an organisation. We took this negative stance in order to find the positive solution to the same topic. i.e. the best way to ensure that there IS knowledge management in an organisation. The method involved brainstorming onto paper all ideas that group members came up with without deliberation or discussion. However we could question whether we thought ideas were the same as ones that may have already come up.

In the space of approximately 10 minutes we had filled 3 flip chart pages with easily thought of negative 'would not do's'. We then had a few minutes to deliberate on our brainstorming and establish the top 3 most important ways to ensure that there is no knowledge management in an organisation. We concluded the following:

No communication strategy (Intranets, Internets & Documentation)
No learning & Development strategy
No identification of the organisations required knowledge

We then reversed these top 3 to establish the top 3 'would do's' to ensure knowledge management in an organisation. That included:

A communication strategy
A learning & Development strategy
An identification of the organisations required knowledge

A communication strategy would ensure that both internal and external communications are consistent, hitting the right people at the right time, there are various successful and appropriate communication medias, there is governance and it fits in with the organisational objectives.

A Learning & Development strategy would ensure that organisational learning is in line with organisational objectives, tailored to organisational and personal needs, accredited, through various Medias and informal learning is harnessed and formalised if deemed imperative needs.
An identification of the organisations required knowledge ensures that the organisation is harnessing, preserving and disregarding the correct knowledge, information and data. This would filter into both the Communication and Learning & Development strategy.

These are in order of importance as agreed amongst the group on the day, however upon reflection I think that priority 3 would probably precede 1 and 2 because put simply I believe it is a prerequisite that would have to be established before you can even think about establishing a Learning & Development or Communications strategy.

I was most impressed by the ease at which we were able to come to these conclusions. These new techniques I have learned will most definitely be harnessed in future business settings to share and deliberate knowledge.