In discussing the emerging concept of KM, the problem of differentiating between KM models and methods (approaches) to managing knowledge also came to fore at the BIS 4410 seminar on KM models. Models were seen as abstraction of reality, an ideal state that can be achieved through several means and which is expected to yield the best results. On the other hand a method is a means or manner of procedure, especially a regular systematic way of accomplishing something or the procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of knowledge. These definitions imply that while models are high-level abstraction of an ideal, methods are detailed step-by-step procedure of achieving a goal. A question that came to my mind at this point was whether organisations should focus on the available KM models with a view to adopting suitable one for use or whether the focus should be on the method to adopt in identifying and disseminating knowledge within the organisation. Another point in this conversation is the fact that no matter what model an organisation seeks to adopt to manage knowledge, it must develop KM methods that are suitable for its own peculiar environment to successfully derive maximum benefits from the adoption of any particular KM model.
Having shown divergence in KM philosophies, definitions, theories and models which has left gaps that hinder Knolwedge management strategies development in organisations, the facilitators of the Module (Aboubakr and Mark) suggested - in their paper on Notions of Knowledge management - that a common basis is required to facilitate communication between practitioners having different roles and perspective; and to enable interoperability of different knowledge management strategieS among departments within an organisation or between different organisations. There was also an attempt to differentiate between ‘Information Systems’ and Knowledge Management Systems’ in the same paper. While Information systems are seen as systems where static relationships between entities dominate the architecture and design; and a single meaning is ascribed to all entities and to the relationship between them, while Knowledge management systems need to support ad-hoc dynamic creation of changing relationships amongst entities, thus supporting the unpredictable nature of knowledge. In my view, this position is similar to that of Malhotra (2000), who suggested that today’s net business have business models that support the constant and dynamic changes occurring in the business environment.
The important points learned from my research on the KM models and definition themes come from the movement to business model rethinking posited by Malhotra (2000) where organisations where urged to adopt KM to adapt to the rapid and dynamic changes in the e-everything age. Another one is the KM taxonomy presented by Earl (2001), which I think organisations can examine to adopt an approach or a combination of approaches that are in line with their organisational aspirations and environment.
Having shown divergence in KM philosophies, definitions, theories and models which has left gaps that hinder Knolwedge management strategies development in organisations, the facilitators of the Module (Aboubakr and Mark) suggested - in their paper on Notions of Knowledge management - that a common basis is required to facilitate communication between practitioners having different roles and perspective; and to enable interoperability of different knowledge management strategieS among departments within an organisation or between different organisations. There was also an attempt to differentiate between ‘Information Systems’ and Knowledge Management Systems’ in the same paper. While Information systems are seen as systems where static relationships between entities dominate the architecture and design; and a single meaning is ascribed to all entities and to the relationship between them, while Knowledge management systems need to support ad-hoc dynamic creation of changing relationships amongst entities, thus supporting the unpredictable nature of knowledge. In my view, this position is similar to that of Malhotra (2000), who suggested that today’s net business have business models that support the constant and dynamic changes occurring in the business environment.
The important points learned from my research on the KM models and definition themes come from the movement to business model rethinking posited by Malhotra (2000) where organisations where urged to adopt KM to adapt to the rapid and dynamic changes in the e-everything age. Another one is the KM taxonomy presented by Earl (2001), which I think organisations can examine to adopt an approach or a combination of approaches that are in line with their organisational aspirations and environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment