Rethinking knowledge management and the experience …cmr.ba.ouhk.edu.hk/cmr/webjournal/v7n3/CMR016C04.pdf · 2004 10 7 3 • Vol. 7, No. 3, Oct 2004 Rethinking knowledge management

2004 �� 10 �� 7 �� 3 �� • Vol. 7, No. 3, Oct 2004

Rethinking knowledge management and the experience of a small and

medium-sized enterprise

Ivy CHAN

Kenneth C K CHAO

http://cmr.ba.ouhk.edu.hk

Web Journal of Chinese Management Review • Vol 7 • No 3 1

Ivy Chan, School of Business, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Hong

Kong Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong, Email: [email protected]

Kenneth C K Chao , School of Business and Administration, The Open University of Hong

Kong, 30 Good Shepherd Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Email: [email protected]

Rethinking knowledge management and

the experience of a small and

medium-sized enterprise Ivy CHAN

Kenneth C K CHAO

Abstract Knowledge is widely considered a business imperative that contributes to long-term competitiveness, which in turn sustains organizational development. Managing knowledge effectively, therefore, becomes crucial agenda in business practices. Despite the evolving awareness and attention, prior studies on knowledge management (KM) have encountered inconsistent findings and many organizations have obtained thwarted results from the adoption and implementation of KM. One frequent ‘criticism’ identifies the elusive and diverse contemplation of what KM is and how KM could be and/or should be incorporated in business processes. To address these issues, this paper aims to reexamine and rethink the relevant KM work, incorporate with the KM-related implications drawn from the organizational learning discipline so as to address the theoretical foundations and practical endeavors. It is argued that three interrelated elements — knowledge types, knower types, and knowledge manipulation activities — have to be fundamentally addressed and explored to provide a better understanding of KM. Appreciating the three inter-related elements can encourage more research to be undertaken with a holism of conceptualizations and empirical studies, and can invoke practitioners to consider, evaluate or rethink KM in a more rigorous sense in order to fit in their business strategies and policies. To make an initial attempt toward synthesizing the three elements, we conduct a preliminary case study regarding an experience of a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) in adopting KM, followed with implications and highlights of effective KM as management of hybrid of ‘soft’ issues, together with commonly identified ‘hard’ issues.

Key words: Knowledge Management, Knowledge Types, Knower Types, Knowledge Manipulation Activities, Small and Medium-sized Enterprise


Introduction

‘We are entering (or have entered) the knowledge society in which the basic economic resource … is knowledge … and where the knowledge worker will play a central role …’ (Drucker 1993)

Knowledge is increasing recognized as a key business imperative and has positive impacts for organizations in terms of efficiencies, effectiveness and competitiveness (Alavi & Leidner 2001, Grover & Davenport 2001). While there are many reasons for pursuing knowledge management (KM), many organizations contend that KM can lead to significant improvements in current operational performance, future capacity and adaptability to changing customers needs and market conditions (Beckman 1997, Cross & Baird 2000, Earl 2001). Prior research and surveys conducted by business consultancies and research firms (e.g., Ezingeard, Liegh, & Chandler-Wilde 2000, KPMG 2000) also indicate that many organizations have already addressed KM as an integral part of their business agendas in a more rigorous and formal way than before. Research studies from various disciplines or with different perspectives demonstrate a growing interest towards KM and manifest multi-faceted concepts and ideas such as knowledge classification (Earl 2001, Holsapple & Joshi 2001), KM factors (APQC 2001, Holsapple & Joshi 2000), KM technology (Hahn & Subramani 1999, Marwick 2001) and KM strategy (Choi & Lee 2001, Zack 1999).

Despite the promise of effective KM for organizational performance, organizations have frequently expressed ‘criticisms’ or unsolved questions about KM, including unmet promises and thwarted results from the KM endeavours and implementations (Davenport, Long & Beers 1998, Fahey & Prsuak 1998). The major cause for these criticisms could be attributed to the inability to comprehend a commonly defined view of KM (Allee 1997, Holsapple & Joshi 1999), a deluge of conceptualizations of knowledge and KM that dilute effectiveness to incorporate in business processes (Alavi & Leidner 2001, Earl 2001), prevailing perception on knowledge as a thing or traded commodity that can easily be coded, processed and captured and overlooking the complementary role of humans/people (Cook & Brown 1999, Markus 2001, Swan & Newell 2000), and cursory presumption to use and apply information technology (IT) to automate KM initiatives (Fischer & Ostrwald 2001, Thomas, Kellogg & Erickson 2001).

To reconcile the unresolved KM problems and misconceptions, we take on board a holistic approach concerning KM development. In other words, a comprehensive and unanimous discourse of concepts, perspectives, issues from existing KM literature and other related disciplines need to be considered and accommodated in a focused and flexible manner (Cohen 1998, Holsapple & Joshi 1999). In this context, this paper associates the existing KM studies with cognitive thinking and organizational learning disciplines, and identifies three fundamental elements to boost KM development in a comprehensive and holistic manner. Echoing the notion of Prusak (2001) regarding the main thrusts of KM: ‘The only thing that gives an organization a competitive edge — the only thing that is sustainable — is what it knows, how it uses what it knows, and how


fast it can know something new!’ Specifically, we argue that the three elements, namely knowledge types, knower types, and knowledge manipulation activities are interconnected.

The rest of the paper is organized in four sections. The following section introduces the conceptualizations and related notions of three fundamental KM elements: knowledge types, followed by an extended typology of knowledge - to highlight the cognitive aspect of knowledge; knower, as individuals possess and manipulate knowledge in accord with their preferences, and knowledge manipulation activities with different stages of knowledge flow and interactions with the knower. The third section portrays the implications to research and practice with regard to the conceptual discussion of the KM paradigm. The fourth section presents the experience of an SME in initiating and adopting KM in its business processes. Finally, concluding remarks are given.

Conceptual Discussion

Knowledge taxonomy

‘One flaw in knowledge management is that it often neglects to ask what knowledge to manage and to what end.’ (Stewart 2001, p.117)

Conceivably, the key notion of KM is how ‘one, be an individual, group, or an organizational unit should manage knowledge’. Therefore, a fundamental element of KM is knowledge with what it is and how its component dimensions are featured (Holsapple & Joshi 2001, Schoonhoven 2002). Prior studies in organization and cognitive theories have identified different types of knowledge and developed several knowledge typologies (Blackler 1995, Collins 1993, Gray 2000, Spender 1996). A notable, and perhaps a seminal one is Polanyi’s (1966) tacit-explicit knowledge taxonomy. In essence, Polanyi conceives knowledge as a multi-faceted resource (e.g., facts, interpretations and skills) that spans from the explicit to the tacit. At one end of the spectrum, knowledge is almost completely explicit. It can be codified and transmitted through words and numbers that can be systematized and captured in documents and systems. At the other end of the spectrum, knowledge is almost completely tacit. Personal beliefs and skills that are ingrained in a mind and subconsciously embodied in actions are examples of tacit knowledge.

Realizing the trickiness of the definition of knowledge, some researchers suggest perceiving knowledge in a structured and systematic way whereby knowledge is different from information and data (e.g., Davenport & Pruask 1998, Tumoi 2000, Zack 1999). A commonly held view of data, information and knowledge is surmised in a hierarchical order, with data being less than information, and information less than knowledge. Data can be defined as raw data, facts and observations; information is processed data that gives a meaning or interpretation with a context; and knowledge is organized


information combined with authentication and inference for actions (Alavi & Leidner 2001, Davenport & Prusak 1998).

Based on Polanyi’s work, succeeding researchers have elaborated on the knowledge conceptualizations in different avenues. In accordance with the resources-based theory (Massey, Montoya-Weiss & O’Driscoll 2002, Spender 1996), knowledge is perceived as an objective transferable commodity with the premise of acquisition and accumulation of knowledge stock that brings business competitiveness. Related studies are found with organizations emphasizing KM technology or KM codification strategies (e.g., APQC 1997, Malhotra 2001, McDermott 1999). With regard to cognitive sciences, knowledge is highly related with the inquiry system and sense making process where individuals manipulate inherent knowledge to scan and evaluate the environment to grasp a better understanding and decision making (Churchman 1971). Related works are identified with knowledge as a process of knowing where individuals use their tacit knowledge to undergo a continuous truth discovery, judgment and justification (Alavi & Leidner 1999, Bhatt 2000, Cook & Brown 1999, Nonaka 1994). It is also perceived as a dynamic asset where organizations aim to appropriate it from personal repositories, share it among employees, enact it in works and develop it as future capabilities to drive effective actions, learning and performance (Fahey & Prusak 1998, Garvin 1993, Nonaka & Konno 1998, Von Krogh, Nonaka & Nishiguchi 2000).

Though none of the diversified conceptualizations and related works can subsume others as a unified definition, they have contributed and accounted for our understanding of KM from different perspectives. Acknowledging the knowledge taxonomy (Polanyi 1966) and fusing it with the implications from knowledge advocated from the organizational learning aspect, a contemporary account of knowledge, proposed by Scharmer (2001) is identified. In his work, Scharmer (2000) upholds Polanyi’s knowledge character with tacitness and in a personal way, and conceptualizes knowledge along two main dimensions, namely embodiment and communicability. He extends the two forms of knowledge into three forms, idiosyncratically explicit knowledge (EK), embodied tacit knowledge (TK) and self-transcending knowledge (SK). Those forms of knowledge are characterized by the detachment from the human mindset and embodiment in human action (Figure 1).

EK, as least sticky from human minds, is externalized and embodied in documentations or different information systems. Therefore, the knowledge premise is built upon systemic access and efficient transmission of recorded procedures and best practices that are apparent, visible or communicable to others. TK, as not easily communicable personal knowing includes perceptions, ideas residing in human minds or those implicit in skills and experience. Therefore, the knowledge premise relies on reflection, embodied action, watching-and-doing or demonstration from self to others. Similar to TK, SK is implicit, buried and rooted deeply in the human mind. Different from TK and EK, SK is the stickiest and the least communicable knowledge that is not embodied in actions. The significance of SK lies in its incipient nature that provokes TK and EK. In other words, it is the primary source that stimulates individuals to intuit unrealized ideas,


innovate new thoughts, sense new opportunities and elicit proactive actions. Therefore, the knowledge premise focuses on improving experience and rethinking thoughts by tapping into this origin.

Figure 1. Three Forms of Knowledge

(Source: Scharmer 2000)

Knowers

‘Knowledge is always embodied in a person; carried by a person; taught and passed on by a person; used and misused by a person.’ (Drucker 1993)

As discussed before, knowledge is concurred as a state of knowing embedded in individuals’ mindsets (Alavi and Leidner 2001, Malhotra 2001, Markus 2001). The concept of individuals/ knowledge workers/knowers in KM, however, is sparsely attended to or little understood (Scarbrough 1999, Schultze 2000). Therefore, we trace the implications from studies related to cognitive theory, organizational learning and intellectual capital and identify an influential work advocated by Churchman (1971) that augments the images and attributes of the knower. Fundamentally, Churchman (1971) delineates individuals as processing agents to inquire and interact with the environment, activating, applying and reconfiguring their inherent knowledge to derive judgment, actions and learning. This is why prior studies and empirical works assert that KM is a hybrid of knowers and technology activities where the role of the human is increasingly recognized (APQC 1997, KPMG 2000, Malhotra 2001, Tsoukas & Vladimirou 2001).

Despite the paucity of related studies, a number of attempts to address knower are found in studies related to problem solving, behavioural creativity and learning processes. For example, individuals are characterized as unique entities (Scarbrough 1999) contributing to organizational memory and innovation processes where their inherent differences invoke different results in idea generation, problem paradigm modification, and knowledge absorption and retention (Cohen & Levinthal 1990, Garfield, Taylor, Dennis & Satzinger 2001, Leonard & Sensiper 1998). Similarly, Kim (1993) denotes that

Highly communicable to others

Deep in mindset


knowers are endowed with different mental models that influence them to undertake operational learning (e.g., procedural work according to manuals) and conceptual learning (e.g., elaboration, configuration of the presumed assumptions), and ultimately to modify or reproduce new thoughts and ideas. The accumulated and reconfigured ideas are then recycled into knowers’ mental maps and act as an impetus to add value to organizations in terms of improved knowledge, actions and performance.

Often linked with various KM processes, the concept of knowers has begun to attract considerable interest and attention in the IS community with empirical tests being identified. For instance, Szulanski (1996) reports the results from an empirical study of 122 best practices, which synthesizes the episodes, learning lessons from eight organizations. It is summarized that the knower, primarily playing the role as either sources (knowers who know something, with expertise and experience) or recipients (knowers who seek and acquire something they lack or do not have) manipulate the knowledge to be transferred variably in accordance with their cognitive perceptions and judgments. Significant factors that affect the transfer of best practices include the source lacking motivation, the recipient lacking motivation, and the recipient lacking absorptive capacity. Likewise, the unpredictability of knowledge transfer is evidenced from a field study with service technicians (as either knowledge providers or knowledge recipients) in Xerox (Brown 1998) and intricacy of knowledge reuse for organizational knowledge repositories with different roles of knowers such as producer, consumer and intermediary (Markus 2001) denote that attention to the knower should be made in a rigorous way.

Scrutinizing the conceptualizations and implications from above, the primary issue concerning the knower lies upon the predispositions, preferences and inclinations of individual cognition. That means knowledge is instigated and stems from individuals; the distinctive performance and results of KM processes such as acquisition, sharing and dissemination, therefore, are leveraged by knowers, driven and shaped by their inherent cognitive styles. In this regard, we adopt the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) in this paper to identify and categorize knowers by the three-dimensional conceptualization (i.e. originality, efficiency and rule-conformity) as either adaptors or innovators (Kirton 1976, 1994). Moreover, it is evident that the KAI is apt to measure the knowers’ traits and attributes with fairly stable behaviour over KM processes (Garfield, Taylor, Dennis & Satzinger 2001, Korth 2000, Murdock, Isakesen, & Lauer 1993, Sadler-Smith & Badger 1998).

Knowers labelled as adaptors, typified by precision, reliability and efficiency, are inclined to follow and accept the underlying context and seek solutions within perceived constraints. They tend to maintain stability (i.e. the status quo) and seldom question the reasons for existing practices. Therefore, their knowledge premise is reinforced by their intents on knowledge that is widely shared, generally accepted and officially recorded 1.

1. In accord with the KAI inventory, the adaptor shows a strong orientation to efficiency and rule-

conformity, but less emphasis on originality.


In contrast, knowers categorized as innovators are characterized by undisciplined and creative thinking. They are inclined to challenge the existing assumptions or taken-for-granted routines in order to search for alternative avenues of solutions and breakthrough. Their knowledge premise emphasizes re-questioning and exploring the framed behaviour and reasoning, or tapping unlearned knowledge sources for radical changes 2.

Knowledge manipulation activities

An understanding of the nature of knowledge as personalized information, and its intimacy and presence in the knower’s mind are important in influencing theoretical developments or practical strategies in KM discourse (Alavi & Leidner 2001, Earl 2001). Prior studies concur with, draw upon or are inferred from Polanyi’s (1976) personal character of knowledge, as individual possession and capability to drive action and learning have developed further the research arena regarding organizational knowledge. Their primary concern entails managing knowledge to organizational benefit (e.g., new product development, innovation) therefore prompting a systemic and organized approach to devise dynamic processes turning and reflecting such personal knowledge into collective understanding, practices and skills that contribute to organizational knowledge (e.g., APQC 1997, Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland 2000, Bhatt 2000, Stenmark 2001, Tsoukas & Vladimiros 2001, Von Krogh, Nonaka & Nishiguchi 2000).

Under the broad banner of dynamic processes of KM, we identify profound studies in articulating the key stages or activities undertaken by organizations. The overview of KM drawn by Earl (2001) highlights the different aims in managing knowledge (e.g., capture and accumulate knowledge into directories, inspire new knowledge through connecting people and communication, improve business performance with effective knowledge flows). Similarly, an empirical study of KM stage development by Lee and Kim (2001) identifies four distinct processes of knowledge flow and reconfiguration where knowers acquire, create, internally share and globally share various sources of knowledge across different stages of the KM development life cycle (i.e., from initiation to propagation, integration and finally the networking stage). In a nutshell, KM can be generalized as systemic or deliberated processes with generating, capturing, accessing, sharing and applying knowledge (Alavi & Leidner 2001, Fahey & Prusak 1998), centring on how knowers realize, initiate, and invoke personal knowledge; engage and enact in knowing with interaction and adaptation to situated contexts and environments; configure, learn, retain and structure their knowledge repositories for other applications.

The knowledge spiral mode comprising four interrelated modes — socialization, externalization, combination and internalization — (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) is adopted in this paper. In essence, the model consists of the fact that tacit and explicit knowledge are converted and transferred among individuals through their interaction,

2 In accordance with the KAI inventory, the innovator demonstrates a strong orientation toward

originality, but a relatively low score in efficiency and rule-conformity.


and also that individuals come to learn and share certain beliefs or systems of values at an individual level, group level or even organizational level. Moreover, the knowledge spiral model is conceded widely in both KM paradigms as it addresses some of the KM uncertainties and criticisms mentioned before, with premise on the interplay of knowledge (based upon Polanyi 1966), knowers (involved entities as individuals, groups and organization) and processes (departed from mechanistic information processing, with subjective judgment and dynamic changes). In addition, it sheds light on the field of organization development regarding innovation and creativity strategies, thriving and emphasizing continuous value-added knowledge through learning, discovery and sharing (Cohen 1998, Sadler-Smith & Badger 1998, Uit Beijerse 1999).

The four interrelated conversion modes are described and portrayed (Figure 2) as follows:

Socialization represents the process of sharing tacit knowledge among individuals, with activation of their mental thoughts and linking to others’ contemplation. Akin to the apprenticeship, individuals learn and acquire knowledge from face-to-face interaction where knowledge is transferred from the source to recipients through observation, imitation or bodily skills demonstration that could hardly be coded or verbalized.

Externalization involves the process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit forms that can be comprehended by others. Individuals create knowledge through inducing or deducing thoughts and relay concepts from dialogue, metaphors and analogies.

Combination embarks on the process of systemizing different bodies of explicit knowledge such as documentations and guidance. Individuals reconfigure their knowledge repository from sorting, adding, filtering, and combining knowledge among the fragmentary sources.

Internalization depicts the process of transforming explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge through embodying the acquired knowledge in action. Individuals trigger new knowledge by actualized practice and contextualized praxis.


Figure 2. Knowledge Creation Modes (Source: Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995)

Implications The above discussion of KM conceptualizations and perspectives can shed light on both research and practice discourses.

Research aspect

Previous efforts to define or categorize knowledge and KM have been fruitful, despite remaining in a fragmented manner. It is argued that any emerging field e.g., E-commerce requires considerable endeavours to evolve valid instruments and theories to substantiate its orthodoxy (Bostrom, Olfman, & Sein 1993). Therefore, we propose the following research tasks, as an initial step to uncap the field of KM:

! By revisiting Polanyi’s (1966) tacit and explicit taxonomy, the above discussion persuades an evaluative and judicious inquiry of what knowledge is. The three-form knowledge (Scharmer 2001) is advocated to this direction. Other researchers may continue to enrich this extended taxonomy with addressing what attributes are in each form of knowledge, by gripping and impoverishing their understanding of KM-related works in their fields.

! To be credible and substantial, the three fundamental elements should have integrated for empirical tests. The development of the conceptual model is not

Socialization

Internalization

Externalization

Combination

Tacit knowledge

Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge


within the scope and objective of this current paper. Further research could be conducted to depict the inter-relationship or correlations of the three elements with adopting the validated measure instruments of KAI and the SECI models. Regarding the tricky concept of knowledge, pertinent works and development are needed to turn existing conceptual notions into operationalized items. Researchers can consider engaging qualitative methods such as focus groups discussion, an effective method to solicit a wide range of ideas and comments for elusive concepts (Krueger 1998), to generate spontaneous suggestions for theory building.

Practical aspect

Surveys and consultancy projects reveal that management is aware and appreciates the competitive advantages followed by advanced KM technology and profoundly successful KM practices. However, unsolved questions or even criticisms of KM still exist that hinder the diffusion and adoption (Bhatt 2000, Davenport, Long & Beers 1998). Thus, we recommend practitioners to consider the importance of understanding the three inter-related elements in aligning with their business strategies in various stages.

! To initiate or intend to start KM (Lee & Kim 2001, OECD 1996), organizations with a grasp of the fundamental elements can know what to manage (knowledge in multiple facets), where to start (from individual, to group and organizational level) and what to place emphasis on (e.g., investment in knowers/employees).

! To validate and assess the effectiveness in current KM projects, organizations can use these three elements as evaluation aspects to compare within and across different functions, thus to identify the respective gaps such as deficiencies and deployment of attention and provide suitable remedies for correction and adjustments (Bohn 1994, King & Ko 2001).

! To transcend the existing status of KM, organizations may review their KM strategies, assessing the current performance of each KM element and augment with technology (e.g., Alavi & Leidner 2001), R&D (e.g., Mangematin & Nesta 1999), training and development (e.g., Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland 2000) for a synergetic strategy, in accordance with the business objectives.

A case illustration — the experience of an SME

The above discussion is intended to summon rethinking of KM with emphasis on three elements — knowledge, knowers and knowledge manipulation activities through scrutinizing the essences and shortfalls in each respective pillar. As stated earlier, the proposed conceptual framework is not a governing model to encompass a wide array of notions in knowledge management and organizational learning. Rather, it is an attempt to elucidate the arguable questions on what entity is being managed and created in knowledge management and what underlying factor exists that drives the continuous KM


mechanism. What follows in this section is to highlight the experience of an SME in experimenting with KM with particular focus on the final stage in the knowledge creation process. It is hoped that the SME example will help to elucidate further the challenges and problems and to provide some directions and insights for future researchers and practitioners.

Background

HS (fictitious) is a manufacturing firm engaged primarily in the production of handbags and leather accessories. Its head office is located in Hong Kong, and the firm has ten staff including one director, one general manager, one sales manager and seven administrative staff. The head office is responsible for all strategic decisions and planning, e.g. seeking prospective agents and promotion campaigns. The company’s production plant is located in Guangdong province and has 450 staff, including 30 managers/supervisors, ten administrative staff, and 410 skilled workers. The major departments include sewing, packaging, gluing, cutting and quality control. The organization chart can be found in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Organizational Chart of HS

Head Office (Hong Kong)

Sewing Department (2 managers, 6 supervisors)

Packaging Department (1 manager, 4 supervisors)

Cutting Department (3 supervisors)

Gluing Department (4 supervisors)

Quality Control

(1 managers,

5 supervisors)

4 senior management staff

(Responsible for operation, purchasing, accounting, and sales functions)


Over the years, HS has expanded its range of products, production capacity and resources in operation equipment in order to seize market opportunities. However, HS finds it difficult to improve its performance (e.g. products fall short of customers’ expectations). The operation manager explains that this might be caused by the ineffectiveness in transferring craftsmen’s skills (e.g. skills lost with staff turnover) and inconsistency in quality control (e.g. different defect criteria are used within the same log of finished products).

In view of the keen competition and internal weaknesses, the director organized a strategic team, including management from the head office (Hong Kong) and management from the production plant (China) to uncover the underlying problems and suggest ways for sustaining competitiveness. After weeks of exploration including observation and communicating with the supervisors, they concluded that the genuine problem lies in knowledge management, specifically low knowledge diffusion and high knowledge loss.

Apparent instances of ineffective KM were observed. Experienced employees in HS, e.g. supervisors, conceived knowledge as power to keep their position and status. Thus, they preferred to keep their knowledge to themselves and were reluctant to share it with others; this resulted in valuable knowledge resources being wasted in duplicating problem solving in the production of similar handbag models. Another instance was found in that training and development was usually conducted in a reactive or mechanical approach in order to cope with changing customer needs. There was no systemic method to facilitate employees to capture and integrate their acquired skills into their personal knowledge repositories. Therefore, knowledge was lost when employees moved on to other handbag models or left HS.

Diagnosis of knowledge management problems

Based upon the preliminary findings, the strategic team undertook an in-depth examination of problems of KM, summarized the observation (symptoms) and inferred the diagnosis (causes). The symptoms and causes are summarized in Table 1.


Table 1. Diagnosis of Knowledge Management in HS

Symptoms Causes

! Supervisors complain about the heavy workload as

they are merely the experts/advisors for their team

members.

! Employees adopt a passive stance in learning new

skills, e.g., they implement instructions without

asking.

! Supervisors only focus on their tasks with little

interest in what other supervisors are doing.

! Knowledge is not shared but

solely kept by a small group

of people.

! Learning initiatives among

employees is low due to the

silo effect of organizational

structure.

! When skilled workers leave HS, specific production

techniques are swiftly acquired by other

competitors.

! Knowledge is lost to

competitors.

! Supervisors find it difficult to remember success

stories or to reuse best practices for respective

clients.

! Knowledge is not identified

and captured and retained.

! Employees learn techniques and practices in a

reactive/piece meal approach.

! Employees take a long time to acquire techniques

and forget these techniques quickly.

! Knowledge is not developed/

nurtured systematically.

The strategic team considered knowledge to be an asset to organizations that can be tapped, transferred and stored like a commodity. Thus, they decided to approach KM with codification as the primary solution to keep track of the flow of knowledge. They met with the supervisors in the production plant and presented them with the key aspects of knowledge problems (Table 1). Thereafter, the strategic team asked all supervisors to spend one month collecting, organizing and codifying the respective knowledge in their work contexts, e.g., daily practice, skills, rituals, into a departmental handbook that could be shared and disseminated to others. In addition, the strategic team conveyed that these handbooks would be transformed into electronic information through computers and could be accessed at the head office.

Reflections on knowledge management initiatives

After a month, the strategic team met with the supervisors and expected a series of comprehensive and informative handbooks to be done. However, they found that the departmental handbooks were inadequate both in terms of quality (e.g., loose structure, unnecessary information) and quantity (e.g., number of incidents/practices recorded). Despite their efforts to seek, trace and explicate knowledge, the supervisors expressed ambiguities and difficulties in codifying and documenting what they know into the handbooks. The strategic team analogized the KM problems as an iceberg. They recognized that the prior findings of KM were only the tip of an iceberg. The genuine


meaning of KM was hidden at the bottom of the iceberg that is not overtly delineated and well defined.

After a week, the strategic team called a meeting with the supervisors and conceived that open communication and discussion was necessary to examine the KM iceberg. Instead of using a formal discussion and setting, the meeting was conducted in an informal way. More importantly, they encouraged everyone to express their thoughts, opinions and feedback from a personal perspective or collective stance (e.g. comments from subordinates) regarding the KM initiatives. The result of this initiative was encouraging and plenty of reflective ideas and thoughts emerged. Synthesizing these thoughts and ideas from the meeting, the strategic team identified five constituents that had to be clarified and imparted prior to the implementation of a KM program.

The five constituents, with quotes extracted from employees to exemplify the meanings of each constituent, are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Constituents of Knowledge Management

Constituents Quotes from employees

Definitions of

knowledge

! ‘I have been working here for 10 years. There is no such term

called knowledge in our practice. What we emphasize is

whether you can do a task or not.’

! ‘Knowledge may be anything that enables me to complete a

task. It seems that knowledge is found everywhere, in our mind,

action and organizational practice.’

Reasons to manage

knowledge

! ‘I can do whatever I can memorize and think, I am doing a good

job in managing knowledge.’

! ‘Managing knowledge requires me to share what I know with

others. I am afraid that I may lose my job as others can replace

me anytime.’

Ways to manage

knowledge

! ‘Everyone knows something that may be valuable to the

department. How can I collect them?’

! ‘I know more than I can tell. Codification does not help much to

manage what I know.’

Responsible entities to

manage knowledge

! ‘Supervisors cannot change the behavior of subordinates if they

do not consider KM as part of their jobs.’

! ‘KM may involve various parties. Our perspectives are usually

different from those of our subordinates.’

Management support/

incentives systems

! ‘I do not see anyone in the organization who cares and

recognizes what I devote to innovative production techniques.’

! ‘Time and resources are limited in the organization. We are too

busy to engage in any experience sharing and learning

gathering.’


The ineffectiveness of the codification approach sheds light on the incorporation of other factors/ methods to approach KM. As mentioned, exploration of the KM constituents facilitates the organization to elucidate the puzzles and misconceptions rooted in employees’ minds. It also paves the way for planning and developing the KM program that could be widely accepted.

Reposition of knowledge management strategy

The reflection meeting provided insights to management to rethink and reposition KM in the production plant. It is contended that KM is neither an extension of information management nor solely a technology application to capture, organize and retrieve information, to evoke databases and data mining (Thomas, Kellogg, & Erickson 2001). Knowledge is embedded in a social context (e.g. organizational culture) that involves communication and learning among loosely structured networks and communities of people. Therefore, individuals/employees are crucial to the execution of KM initiatives by utilizing their knowledge and skills to learn, share, combine and internalize with other sources of knowledge to generate new thoughts or new perspectives.

Instead of a top-down approach of policy making, management adopts a middle-up-down (Nonaka 1994) approach and aims to use supervisors to leverage and promote KM throughout the organization. To enhance acceptance and lessen resistance to change, the strategic team chose a new product series to try out the KM initiatives. Incorporating the KM constituents identified in stage two, the strategic team delineated four aspects (Uit Beijerse 1999) to direct the KM program in HS such that knowledge is identified, developed, shared and created. The details are listed as follows:

1. Strategic aspect:

Management and supervisors jointly recognized the core competences of HS as reliable production and swift responsiveness to customer needs. In addition, they perceived the working definition of knowledge as a fluid mixture of experience, ideas and insights originating from each employee. With proper management, knowledge can be leveraged and embedded in organizational routines, processes and practices to sustain innovation and competitiveness. Thus, the KM vision in HS, aligned with strategic objectives, emerged to enable productivity with consistent quality products, such that customer satisfaction can always be exceeded. By wandering around, drawing up a personnel and skills inventory and knowledge mapping, supervisors gained a better understanding of their work practice in KM aspects. They formulated various KM strategies to address the knowledge gaps.

2. Organizational aspect:

The strategic plan provides the blueprint for the KM program. HS construed a knowledge-management friendly organizational structure that facilitates knowledge flows, exchange and creation among workers. To accomplish these objectives, HS decided to enhance various modes of communication and human interactions across


the organization. Specifically, HS organized various socialization activities such as tea gathering to foster a friendly and open organizational culture. Throughout the activities, employees at various levels were found actively and frequently exchanging ideas and expressing their opinions and difficulties encountered in their tasks. In addition, employees attempted to share experiences, identify best practice or explore innovative skills through various channels. For example, in the sewing department, skills transfer could be achieved through mentorship and apprenticeship. The mentor and mentee developed a close working relationship and engaged in intimate communication to identify effective ways of sewing.

3. Instrumental aspect:

HS also established a mechanism or system that enabled knowledge to be developed, shared and evaluated. The mechanism included channels that helped to acquire and introduce knowledge from external sources to HS that could stimulate people to think and question existing practices. In addition, KM is a human and social activity linked with motivation and incentive systems. Extrinsic (e.g., monetary) and intrinsic rewards (e.g., recognition) can be adopted depending on the stage of KM development.

Proven skills or identified best practice were recorded in the departmental handbook and then publicized on the notice board. Employees who innovated or discovered best practices were recognized and rewarded with cash bonuses. Furthermore, operation managers organized regular meetings with supervisors to review the KM project and provide feedback from clients, and organized site visits to other production factories to further improve on and explore knowledge creation. To internalize and practice knowledge, supervisors co-ordinated job rotation plans for employees so that skills could be transferred and shared internally. Also, employees could benefit from skills enhancement and exposure to various production stages that increase organizational flexibility.

4. Output aspect:

The KM initiatives should be reviewed periodically to assess whether the goal set is accomplished. If the goal is not reached, then auditing and examination have to be undertaken in order to find the causes and identify the remedies. If the goal is achieved, management may consider the success factors and leverage them in future KM programs.

Supervisors held ‘operation’ meetings with their subordinates to examine production schedules, problems and opportunities. The departmental goal, which was recorded in the departmental handbook, was reviewed and evaluated. Similarly, management met with supervisors regularly to review the organizational performance with respect to KM objectives. For example, does production capacity have to increase compared with similar product series? What is the defect rate at each production stage? What is the adoption rate of the identified best


practice/effective skills among employees? What is the rating of job satisfaction of existing employees and newcomers in HS? What do they like/dislike about the organization? Assessing quantitative and qualitative indicators of KM helped management to devise an effective KM program.

Concluding remarks In sum, the study attempts to undertake an initial effort to address KM with a fundamental and holistic perspective through investigating and accommodating some unanimous concepts with contemporary works in multiple disciplines. It should be emphasized that KM is not merely, or blindly linked with technology, centralized strategies and hard approaches. Organizations have to value and appropriate their employees, as knowers playing multiple roles in the KM processes (e.g., knowledge providers, recipients or creators) in leveraging their intellectual capitals with other organizational resources for continuous learning, knowledge creation and innovations. In this connection, KM should be institutionalized and engaged in various functions of organizations, such as human resource management, research and development, and financial management to enable a suitable infrastructure and supportive culture for its effectiveness. The above example of an SME using HS’s experience in KM implementation has highlighted a pragmatic and realistic picture in considering the significance of ‘soft’ issues (or human and social aspects) under various stages of the knowledge creation process. Specifically, it can be inferred that the earlier theoretical discussions on knowers and knowledge creation mode such as that depicted in Figure 2 have drawn attention to the conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge, across different levels/entities requires different approaches and deployment of resources in harnessing organizational resources for KM effectiveness.

References

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(7), 1-37.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

Allee, V. (1997). 12 principles of knowledge management. Training & Development, 51(11), 71-74.

APQC. (1997). Using information technology to support knowledge management: Consortium benchmarking study, best-practice report. American Productivity & Quality Center.


APQC. (2001). Measurement for knowledge management. Retrieved February 2, 2001, from American Productivity & Quality Center, http://apqc.org/free/articles/dispArtile.cfm?productid=1307.

Argote, L., Ingram P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Introduction: Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1-8.

Beckman, T. (1997). A methodology for knowledge management. In Proceedings of the IASTE International Conference on Artificial Intelligences and Soft Computing 1997 (pp. 29-32). Banff, Canada.

Bhatt, G. D. (2000). Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 15-26.

Blacker, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.

Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 61-73.

Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., and Sein, M. K. (1993). Learning styles and end-user training: A first step. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 118-119.

Brown, J. S. (1998). Internet technology in support of the concept of communities-of-practice: The case of Xerox. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 8(4), 227-236.

Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2001). Justification on knowledge management strategies: A new perspective on knowledge creating process. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems 2001 (pp. 108-122). Seoul, Korea.

Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.

Cohen, D. (1998). Toward a knowledge context: Report on the first annual U. C. Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm. California Management Review, 40(3), 22-39.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.

Collins, H. M. (1993). The structure of knowledge. Social Research, 60(1), 95-116.

Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.


Cross, R. & Baird, L. (2000). Technology is not enough: Improving performance by building organizational memory. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 69-78.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. H., Long, D.W. D., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harrper Business.

Earl, M. (2001) Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 215-233.

Ezingeard, J. N., Liegh, S., & Chandler-Wilde, R. (2000). Knowledge management at Ernst & Young UK: Getting value through knowledge flows. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems 2000 (pp. 807-822). Brisbane, Australia.

Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.

Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2001). Knowledge management: Problems, promises, realities, and challenges. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(1), 60-72.

Garfield, M., Taylor, N., Dennis, A. R., & Satzinger J. W. (2001). Research report: Modifying paradigms — Individual differences, creativity technique, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 322-333.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.

Gray, P. H. (2000). The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams: Towards a research model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 175-191.

Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21.

Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. R. (2000). A framework of knowledge management systems: Issues and challenges for theory and practices. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Information Systems 2000 (pp. 302-311). Brisbane, Australia.

Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (1999). Description and analysis of existing knowledge management frameworks. In Proceedings of the Thirty-second Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1999 (pp. 1-14). Maui, Hawaii.


Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2001). Organizational knowledge resources. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 39-54.

Holsapple. C. W., & Singh, M. (2000), Electronic commerce: From a definitional taxonomy toward a knowledge-management view. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(3), 149-170.

Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37-50.

King, W. R., & Ko, D. G. (2001). Evaluating knowledge management and the learning organization. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 5, Article 14.

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.

Korth, S. J. (2000). Single and double-loop learning: Exploring potential influence of cognitive style. Organization Development Journal, 18(3), 87-98.

KPMG Consulting (2000), Knowledge Management Research Report 2000.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups: Focus group kit 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lai, H., & Chu, T. H. (2000). Knowledge management: A review of theoretical frameworks and industrial cases. In Proceedings of the Thirty Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2000 (pp. 1-10). Island of Maui, Hawaii.

Lee, J. H., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). A stage model of organizational knowledge management: A latent content analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(4), 299-311.

Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132.

Malhotra, Y. (2001). Experts systems for knowledge management: Crossing the chasm between information processing and sense making. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 7-16.

Mangematin, V., & Nesta, L. (1999). What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb? International Journal of Technology Management, 18(3-4), 149-173.

Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 53-97.

Marwick, A. D. (2001). Knowledge management technology. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 814-830.


Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & O’Driscoll, T. M. (2002). Knowledge management in pursuit of performance: Insights from Nortel networks. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 269-289.

McDermott, R.(1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review, 41(4), 103-118.

Murdock, M. C., Isakesen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (1993). Creativity training and the stability and internal consistency of the Kirton adaption-innovation inventory. Psychological Reports, 72(4), 1123-1130.

Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”. Building a foundation of knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

OECD. (1996). Employment and growth in the knowledge-based economy. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Pfeffer J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge.

Prusak, L. (2001). Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 1002-1007.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Badger, B. (1998). Cognitive style, learning and innovation. Technology

Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 247-268.

Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the management of knowledge workers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(1), 5-16.

Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing in and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 137-150.

Schoonhoven, C. B. (2002). Evolution of the special issue on knowledge, knowing, and organization. Organization Science, 13(3), 223.

Schultze, U. (2000). A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 3-41.

Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 45-62.


Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 9-24.

Stewart, T. A. (2001). The wealth of knowledge: Intellectual capital and the twenty-first century organization. New York: Doubleday.

Swan, J., & Newell, S. (2000). Linking knowledge management and innovation. Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Information Systems. Vienna, Austria.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter special issue), 27-43.

Thomas, J. C., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (2001). The knowledge management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 863-884.

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993.

Tuomi, I. (2000). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 103-117.

Uit Beijerse, R. P. (1999). Questions in knowledge management: Defining and conceptualizing a phenomena. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 94-109.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (2000). Knowledge creation. A source of value. NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45-58.

Documents

Rethinking knowledge management and the experience …cmr.ba.ouhk.edu.hk/cmr/webjournal/v7n3/CMR016C04.pdf · 2004 10 7 3 • Vol. 7, No. 3, Oct 2004 Rethinking knowledge management