Article on Knowledge Management Models

This article presents the writer’s commentary on the subject of Knowledge Management and the models that have been proposed for adoption by organisations to effectively manage knowledge. According to Earl (2001), the concepts and practices of knowledge management evolved in the 1990s as business managers in the post industrial era began to realize that knowledge was ‘the’ critical resource in improving business performance and their organisations have been poor at managing it. Consequently, Knowledge Management (KM) started to emerge as an area of interest both within organisations as well as in the academia giving rise to the development of a variety of KM models and approaches to managing knowledge by different scholars. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) suggested that there are unresolved issues relating to the emergence, definition, classification, and emancipatory elements of KM which has far reaching implications in choosing approaches to identify and distribute knowledge within organisations. Others have also attempted to classify and criticise models and approaches to KM with the effect that there is so much confusion surrounding the concept and so many questions remain unanswered. Knowledge Management Models

In providing a critique of KM models, McAdam and McCreedy (1999) concluded that all models must be treated with caution as ‘‘they are only useful so long as they are critiqued to understand the underlying assumptions in the representation, rather than accepting them as objective representations of reality’’. This point buttresses the fact in adopting any model, organisations must understand the background assumptions of such with a view to matching it to its own peculiar circumstance or situation. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) categorised KM models into knowledge category models, intellectual capital models and social constructed models.

According to McAdam and McCreedy (1999), knowledge category models classify knowledge into discrete elements. An example is Nonaka’s Model which considers KM as a knowledge creation process. Nonaka (1991) suggested that Managers of highly successful Japanese corporations have become famous for innovation and creation of new products and markets because of their ability to effectively manage the creation of new Knowledge. According to Nonaka (1991), the main point of the Japanese approach is the understanding that new knowledge creation depends on how an organisation taps the tacit and often subjective insights, intuitions and gut feeling of individual employees and making these available for use by the whole organisation. Furthermore, as suggested by Nonaka (1991), the main drivers of this process is personal commitment and employees’ sense of identity with the enterprise and its mission. According to McAdam and McCreedy (1999), Nonaka, model assumes tacit knowledge can be transferred into tacit knowledge in other through socialisation; tacit knowledge can be turned to explicit through externalisation; the process of internalisation can turn explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge in people; and explicit knowledge can be turned to more explicit knowledge through combination.

McAdam and McCreedy (1999) mentioned Boisot’s Model under the Knowledge category models where knowledge is considered as either codified or uncodified and also as diffused or undiffussed within an organisation. Under this model codified and undiffused knowledge is referred to as proprietary; uncodified and undiffused knowledge is referred to as personal knowledge; codified and diffused knowledge is called public knowledge; and diffused but uncodified knowledge is referred to as common sense. Finally McAdam and McCreedy (1999) concluded that knowledge categories models focus on knowledge transformation through socialisation and suggests that categorisation of knowledge in these models are mechanistic.

McAdam and McCreedy (1999) cited the Skandia IC model under the intellectual capital models category. This model is predicated on the assumption that knowledge can be broken down into human, customer process and growth elements contained in two categories of human capital and organisational capital. The model adopts a very scientific approach where knowledge is treated and managed as intangible assets assuming that KM can be decomposed into objective elements rather than being social or political in nature. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) concluded that intellectual capital models – in assuming that knowledge can be treated as an asset - are mechanistic in nature and can result in simplistic approaches to complex social related issues.

Socially constructed models of KM assume a wide definition of knowledge and it is seen as being inherently linked with social and learning processes within the organisation according to McAdam and McCreedy (1999). These models are similar to those models representing the learning organisation and organisational learning. McAdam and McCreedy (1999) cited Demerest’s (1997) adaptation of Clark and Staunton’s (1989) model which stresses that knowledge creation is not merely scientific but includes social construction of knowledge and that constructed knowledge is embodied not just through explicit programs but through a process of social interchange. This is followed by dissemination of adopted knowledge throughout the organisation and its environs and knowledge is eventually seen as being of economic use in terms of organisational outputs. According to McAdam and McCreedy (1999), this model is similar to others that talk about knowledge acquisition, problem solving, dissemination ownership and storage (Jordan and Jones, 1997); knowledge policy, infrastructure and culture (Kruizinga et al 1997); and strategic knowledge, structural and cultural knowledge, systems knowledge, and community of practice and routines (Scarborough, 1996).

Finally McAdam and McCreedy (1999) concluded by suggesting a model – based on socially constructed models - which takes a balanced approach between scientific and socially constructed knowledge; views the use of KM as both emancipatory and business oriented; and where knowledge flows are recursive rather than sequential.

Another perspective on Knowledge management is that provided by Earl (2001) which focuses on suggesting taxonomy for KM strategies. Earl (2001) identified 7 schools of knowledge management which were categorised under 3 headings as follows,

Technocratic Schools

System School – where knowledge is captured via databases and others can use them by applying judgement. Here the knowledge captured is domain specific and as it captures knowledge by domain experts which is used by other experts. Key success factors here include validation of codified knowledge through peer review and incentives and rewards for contributors. Examples include Web-based knowledge systems used by Xerox and Airbus for maintenance of printing equipment and aircrafts respectively.

Cartographic school – where organisational knowledge is mapped by linking people and knowledge (Yellow pages) . Directories are signposts or gateways to knowledge rather than repositories and they lead knowledge seekers to knowledge providers. People connectivity is supported by IT tools like Intranets or special directory applications

Process School – which is an outgrowth of BPR and is based on the ideas that; business processes can be enhanced by providing personnel with task-specific knowledge; and that management processes are more knowledge intensive than business processes meaning that contextual and best practice knowledge are important. The success factor is the use of technology to provide information executives and operating staff.

Economic school

Commercial School – which is based on commercial exploitation and protection of knowledge assets (intellectual property) such as patents, copyrights or trademarks. Dow Chemicals is an example of where knowledge is treated as an asset or commodity. The approach requires dedicated and special teams developing techniques to manage intellectual property as a routine.

Behavioural Schools

Organisational School - involving the use of communities to facilitate knowledge creation and exchange. These communities can be Inter or Intra organisational and are often interdisciplinary. In all cases there is an informal element to community life such as face-to-face exchange and events and organisations sometimes use technology to support communities. Examples are in BP and Shell Corporations.

Spatial School - involving the use of space or spatial design to facilitate knowledge creation and sharing. Examples are metaphors like Water coolers as a meeting place, open style coffee bars or kitchen as knowledge café, and open plan office as a knowledge building. It involves the use of co-presence and socialism as a means of knowledge creation and exchange. In other words, the approach facilitates the creation of social capital by offering sociable spaces. An example is the BA head office at Waterside near Heathrow and Skandia’s Future Centre in Stockholm.

Strategic School – where KM is seen as a dimension of competitive strategy. Examples include Skandia which has declared intellectual capital as the company’s core capability; and Buckman laboratories. The aim is to build nurture and truly exploit knowledge assets through a variety of means. Action that follows from this can encompass measures that come under the other schools.

According to Earl (2001), this taxonomy can help firms to select a knowledge management strategy based on the main themes, objects (units of intervention) and success factors. In this wise, the identification and analysis of performance gaps (productivity, quality and innovation) can be instrumental to select the KM approach with the highest pay-off at a given point in time.

Conclusion

As concluded by McAdam and McCreedy (1999) their suggested model could act as a guide for further research in the area of knowledge management. Looking at the critique of KM models presented above, it can be said that the work of McAdam and McCreedy (1999) is a relevant piece from which an understanding of the assumptions behind these models can be developed to assist an organisation in adopting an approach to managing knowledge. In the same vein, organisations can also use the taxonomy suggested by Earl (2001) to decide on the best approach to KM based on their organisational goals and available resources.

As stated earlier models just present high level representation of a concept like KM, but organisations are at liberty to either adopt a model in its entirety or develop an ‘hybrid’ which include elements of several models depending on their peculiar environment, circumstances or situation. This would inform the specific method or approach to be adopted in exploiting organisational knowledge to achieve organisational goals. An important learning point in this discourse is that KM should not merely be seen as only scientific or mechanistic process but the social or cultural aspects must also be emphasized since most knowledge is derived from the mental ability of people, and humans are generally social animals.






REFERENCES

Earl, M. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge Management Strategies: Towards a Taxonomy’’, Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 215-233

McAdam, R and McCreedy, S. (1999), ‘‘A critical review of knowledge management models’’, The Learning Organisation. Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 91-100.

Nonaka, I (1991), ‘‘the Knowledge-Creating Company’’, Harvard Business Review. July-August 2007.