1.2.2 Knowledge defined and managed
Existing writings explore a range of perspectives on knowledge application in organisations and these perspectives can be sorted into three broad levels: individual and collaborative groups, organisational and societal.
- At the individual and group interaction level, there are the following types:
- Knowledge communities;
- Communities of practice;
- Knowledge alliances; and
- Learning communities (Lessem, 1993; Argyris, 1993; Katezenbach & Smith, 1993; Bowles, 1997; Wenger, 1998; Falk & Kilpatrick, 1999).
At the organisational level, there are:
- Knowledge assets;
- Knowledge management;
- Intellectual or knowledge capital;
- Human capital;
- Organisational learning;
- Corporate intelligence;
- Corporate memory;
- Corporate wisdom; and
- Knowledge innovation (Quinn, 1992; Katezenbach & Smith, 1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Boisot, 1995, 1998; Prusak, 1996; Amidon, 1997; Sveiby, 1997; Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Allee, 1997; Brooking, 1999; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Dixon, 2000, Fitz-ens, 2000, Davenport, 2000; Von Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka, 2000; Bontis, 2002).
At the wider societal level, one sees:
- Knowledge-based economies;
- Learning societies;
- Knowledge economies; and
- Knowledge societies (Masuda, 1990; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, Young, 1995; Amidon, 1997; Castells, 1996).
Knowledge cannot be sorted and managed based on desired outcomes without first understanding the limitations of such an approach and possessing a very sophisticated understanding of the structure of knowledge.
For instance any organisation that assumes it can establish a knowledge manager to manage knowledge assets in the same way that it manages physical and financial assets ‘has missed the point and wasted money’. This assumption fundamentally ignores the fact that the organisation cannot own all knowledge assets. In fact, the majority of knowledge that contributes to productive capacity and the majority of knowledge assets that can hold a capital value for an organisation are not owned by the organisation — and they do not need to be owned by the organisation. The assets are actually owned by individuals and groups that, in many cases, are external to an organisation’s domain of operation.
The value of learning to KM becomes apparent when one accepts that if the majority of knowledge is owned by individuals then its ‘value’ can be measured only in terms of how well individuals and groups transfer information into knowledge that enhances productive outcomes. Both the process of absorbing, transferring and expanding this knowledge and the ability to re-orient and generate new bodies of knowledge in response to emerging demands on the organisation are learning processes. Learning is the crucial process of leveraging knowledge assets that an organisation does not and in some cases cannot own.
The development of knowledge resident in individuals will be explored in depth during the second half of this unit of study on HRD. However, the next chapter will explore the relationship between KM, the structure of knowledge and its transfer between people and organisations.
Reading 3
Prusak, L (2001), ‘Where did Knowledge Management come from?’, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 40[4], pp. 1002-1007. Available at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/prusak.html.
Activity 4
- What is knowledge management?
- What were the major forces impelling the development of KM?
- How important was learning to the foundations of KM?
- Is it sufficient for KM to just focus on enabling organisations to know how to do things?
- Why is knowledge important to contemporary organisations competing in the so-called New Economy?
Back Page