|
1. Introduction
The literature in management and
organisation indicates a widespread recognition of the association of
knowledge and organisational success. Despite early awareness of the construct
(Drucker, 1967) and comprehensive overviews (Despres and Chauvel, 2000; Earl,
2001) there remains little overall advance in understanding the construct
itself (Drucker, 1993; Stewart, 1997). Specific applications of knowledge to
work have been explored by industry practitioners (eg Collison and Parcell,
2001 at BP; Mann et al, 1991 in power utilities), management commentators
(O’Dell and Grayson, 1998) and researchers (eg Carneiro, 2000; Newell et al
2003). This produces the distinction that knowledge is associated with skills
(eg Macintosh et al 1999) or making judgements and decisions in particular
circumstances (Carr, 1999) so it is not surprising that differences exist
among scholars as to what constitutes useful knowledge and the ways in which
it is created. Some theorists show more interest in codified repositories and
information processing as enablers of ‘explicit’ objective and systematic
knowledge (Budzik et al, 1999), Carr, 1999, Den Hartog and Huzinga, 1997 in
Huysman and de Wit, 2002; Klösgen (1996). Others focus on the ‘tacit’
knowledge that people derive from their experiences and from social
interaction with others (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Malhotra, 2000). The shift
in emphasis from sharing knowledge to making productive use of knowledge is
reflected in the shift from individual focus to that of communities (Wenger,
et al, 2002).
As organisations become more
knowledge-based, their success will increasingly depend on knowledge workers
becoming successful at contributing to effective decision making and creating
innovation. It is therefore not surprising that there is a growing recognition
amongst researchers and practitioners alike for the need to better understand
what knowledge is, the value of knowledge, and how it should be managed. In
some cases this is formalised as Knowledge management (KM) and in other cases
as the learning organisation (DiBella et al, 1996) or organisational memory (Weick,
1979). Both are recent responses to the need to better understand and manage
knowledge for success or survival. The central task of those concerned with
knowledge management is to determine best ways to cultivate, nurture and
exploit knowledge at individual and organisational levels. In other words, it
needs to ensure to get the right knowledge to right people just in time
(Snowden, 2002) and help people share and put knowledge into action in ways
that strive to improve organisational performance (Dixon, 2000; O’Dell and
Grayson, 1998).
A distinctive application of KM is
applying knowledge to knowledge itself. Knowledge intensive firms focus on the
commercialisation of knowledge (eg Starbuck, 1992; Gibbons et al, 1999),
innovation and creativity (eg Gerlach and Lincoln, 2000; Brown and Duguid,
2000) or the work of experts (eg Albert and Bradley, 1997). Consulting firms
are a particular example of KM practitioners (Savary, 1999). One area of
omission in knowledge intensive studies is within higher education/research
where there is the virtuous circle of teaching, research and consulting
professional work. The objective of this study is to examine this issue in a
particular academic environment from the twin perspective of the individuals
and expert in KM.
2. Knowledge management framework
An integrated model of knowledge
management is presented in Figure 1. This illustrates the essential components
of knowledge management and their inter-relationships. The model (adapted from
Handzic, 2001) proposes two types of organisational factors; organisational
environment (notably leadership and culture) and technological infrastructure
(the information and communication resources), which may act as an enabler or
constraint on knowledge processes (eg. creation, transfer, utilisation) and
foster the development of organisational knowledge. The model allows the
overall organisational environment to influence the choice of the
technological infrastructure to support knowledge processes. Finally, the
model incorporates a feedback loop to suggest the need for continuous
knowledge measurement and potential adjustment of strategies over time.
Figure 1: An Integrated Knowledge
Management Framework
Although there have been many individual
case studies of various knowledge management initiatives in organisations (eg
Collison and Parcell, 2001; Fruin, 1997; Galliers, 2002; Gerlach, and Lincoln,
2000) there is little empirical evidence regarding the actual penetration and
impact of knowledge management (Kluge et al, 2001; Machlup, 1962; Porat,
1977). The studies available emphasised the introduction of KM programmes and
therefore considered factors such as facilitators of, and barriers to,
success. Therefore there was scope for a study that examined perceptions (Likert,
1932) from both the individual and organisation points of view. The aim of the
study was to investigate several aspects of knowledge management including;
organisational environment, technological infrastructure, knowledge processes,
and knowledge measurement. In light of the foregoing commentary the first
stage this paper is to outline the organisational environment and specific
factors to assess the approach and extent to which a semi-autonomous
university school manages its organisational knowledge.
3. Organisational description
The university school studied is a highly
renowned institution teaching and research institution. It offers both
undergraduate and postgraduate programs of study. It operates a research
centre, plans and conducts a series of research seminars, and, produces
scholarly articles. Wiig (1995) and Liebowitz (2000) discuss the use of
surveys to explore a professional’s thoughts about managing knowledge and
solicit perspectives on the adequacy and efficiency of KM. The survey
instrument employed in this study was based on a previously available
instrument (Arthur Andersen, 1998). (A copy of the survey instrument and
coding sheet is available from the authors). It provides the benefits of
consistency, balance in coverage and capture of individual attitudes.
Modifications were made to the wording to reflect specifics of the
organisation being studied and to achieve consistency in framing among
questions (Oppenheim, 1992; Schulman and Presser, 1981). The survey design
allows the respondent to rate the importance of particular KM practices in a
parallel set of questions the perceived extent to which they are implemented.
Prior to administration the survey items were assigned to the four aspects in
two independent inter-rater exercises. Reliability is in excess of .9.
Participants in the study were academic staff with full time (continuing and
contract) employment.
To minimise potential threats to
validity, questionnaires were distributed to all academics who satisfied the
specified criteria and a brief explanation was provided. Responses were
anonymous and participation was voluntary. 24 distributed questionnaires were
distributed. Surveys were completed without the researchers being present. 17
surveys were returned, achieving a return rate of 71%. This level of response
and the profile across positions ensures that the sample is representative of
the population.
While the formal survey sought specific
responses, the researchers also considered their own organisational
environment. The researchers recognised the potential for bias in the study in
view of their role and responsibilities within the school. Guidance was sought
from well-regarded ethnographic accounts (Geertz, 1974, Van Maanen, 1988;
Trauth, 1997). Their ethnographic approaches present the problem of presenting
a convincing result (Crapanzo, 1986). As the current research involves an
audit of the corporate culture of a specific real-world organisation it
becomes necessary to consider the results themselves and their meaning in the
social context to the researcher. Proponents of this approach also argue that
the results can provide a greater level of depth and understanding of self
image (Pratt, 1986). As the design generates insufficient data to investigate
cause-and-effect relationships it requires careful planning and attention in
order to establish validity (Cook, 2000). In short the survey required a
personal perspective account as well a positivist count in reviewing the
results.
4. Research results
A descriptive analysis of data was
performed as suggested by Tukey (1977) to identify prevailing patterns and
ensure plausibility of findings. In order to identify a central tendency in
participants’ perceptions, the average scores of their responses to relevant
questionnaire items were calculated. These scores are presented in Table 1,
the scale for questionnaire items being 1-7 (7 being the maximum and 1 being
the minimum).
Table 1: Summary results of knowledge
management practices survey
|
Knowledge Management
Practice |
Perceived Importance
Mean Score |
Perceived Implementation
Mean Score
|
|
Organisational Environment |
5.32 |
3.16 |
|
Technological Infrastructure |
4.84 |
3.38 |
|
Knowledge Processes |
4.66 |
2.39 |
|
Knowledge Measurement |
4.75 |
2.11 |
With respect to the perceived importance
of the four knowledge management practices studied, the mean scores obtained
ranged from 4.66 to 5.32. Participants rated a mean score of 5.32 for
organisational environment, 4.84 for technological infrastructure, 4.66 for
knowledge processes, and 4.75 for knowledge measurement practices. With a
seven point scale, scores greater than four indicated that participants tended
to perceive all four practices as being quite important, but the most
important of all was the organisational environment.
With respect to the perceived
implementation of these practices, the mean scores obtained were 3.16 for
organisational environment, 3.38 for technological infrastructure, 2.39 for
knowledge processes, and 2.11 for knowledge measurement practices. Scores less
than 4 indicated that participants perceived the level of implementation of
these knowledge management practices in their organisation as being rather
low, particularly with respect to knowledge measurement practices.
5. Discussion
The key finding from the survey of
knowledge management practices in the school studied is the variance between
the perceived importance and implementation. This was demonstrated by low
scores obtained for participants’ perceptions of the implementation of
knowledge processes and their socio-technological enablers, as compared to
their perceptions of their respective importance. Each of the factors in the
model is now considered.
The participants perceived organisational
environment as a particularly important knowledge management practice. This
view is supported by the KM framework, which suggests that knowledge processes
are facilitated by a conducive organisational environment. Such an environment
is usually demonstrated in terms of strong leadership support and a
collaborative organisational culture. Examples of good leadership support may
include: recognition of the cental importance of managing knowledge to
organistional strategy, encouraging learning to support existing and create
new competencies, developing human resource plans and reward schemes based on
the contribution to the development of organisational knowledge. The high
level of awareness of KM importance found in this study is an encouraging
finding.
Evidence of a collaborative culture may
include an environment that enables and facilitates knowledge sharing, where a
climate of openness and trust exists, and where service value creation is the
main objective of knowledge management practices. In addition, there will be
flexibility and a desire to innovate and drive the learning process, and an
environment where employees take responsibility for their own learning. Our
analysis of people’s perceptions regarding these aspects of KM appear to
suggest that there is an emerging collaborative culture and some support for
knowledge management to be implemented within the school.
With respect to technology, the findings
indicate that it was also considered as quite important KM practice. It is
generally believed that technological infrastructure has the potential to
enable or facilitate knowledge processes by providing a platform for knowledge
capture or sharing. Some examples where technology can be successfuly used to
facilitate knowledge processes include; linking all members of the firm to one
another and to all relevant external parties, creating an institutional memory
that is accessible to the entire organisation, linking the organistion with
its customers and partners, supporting collaboration amongst employees,
fostering human-centered, real-time, integrated and smart systems. Findings of
this study indicate that there may be a need for further investment in
technological infrastructure in order to fully facilitate knowledge management
processes.
In addition, the study highlighted a low
level of implementation of knowledge processes. Facilitated or not,
organisational knowledge is enhanced through a series of interrelated
processes of knowledge creation, transfer and utilisation. Organisations that
implement these processes may exhibit some of the following characteristics;
systematic identification of knowledge gaps and well-defined processes to
address and close them, the development of sophisticated and ethical
intelligence-gathering mechanisms and the involvement of all workforce members
in looking for ideas. Formalising the process of capturing and transferring
knowledge including documentation and lessons learnt, valuing and transferring
tacit knowledge across the organisation through encouraging experimentation
and socialisation. Our findings indicate that academics recognise the
importance of these processes quite well, as shown by their high response
scores. However, once again these findings indicate an emerging level of
implementation of many of the above processes.
Finally, findings indicate that
participants tended to view the school’s knowledge measurement practices as
being in the formative stages of development. Our proposed framework clearly
suggests the need for continuous knowledge measurement in order to monitor and
adjust an organisation’s knowledge management strategy over time. Implementing
good knowledge measurement practices is usually evidenced in finding ways to
link knowledge management to results, developing specific sets of indicators
to manage knowledge, including a balanced set of soft and hard, financial and
non-financial indicators, as well as by allocating resources towards efforts
that measurably increase organisational knowledge base. The results of the
study indicate that these areas need to be addressed by the school.
In considering how to offer perspective
on the findings, the authors considered their own position in relation to the
survey. This approach parallels that suggested and practised by Schultze
(2000). In this section therefore the authors adopt a confessional mode,
appraising their motivations, practices and reactions to the findings. After
returning to early western conceptions of knowledge, Snowden (1999) concludes
that trust, naiveté and curiosity are key words in knowledge management. This
unlikely combination provided the researchers with useful insights. As KM
researchers and practitioners themselves, the authors were concerned that
there was a lack of recognition of the contribution of KM in education given
government expectations for innovation and competitiveness in a global market
(Carneiro, 2000; Cronin and Davenport, 2001; Kidwell, et al 2001). Unlike
other countries, the Australian government commitment to the knowledge economy
can be described as mild given the latest knowledge economy policy
documentation at www.fed.gov.au at the deadline for submission is dated 2001.
Thus any organisational commitment to KM will default to policies and
champions within the governing body. This double absence is clearly
distressing to the authors as they are acutely aware that members of the
school tacitly hold considerable institutional knowledge (Stein, 1995). The
authors had a number of experiences where they wasted time on administrative
matters or made suboptimal decisions through lacking access to that knowledge.
Following several of the tenets of KM the authors adopted an informal
knowledge sharing approach with regard to curriculum and course advising. It
is noteworthy that on a personal basis other faculty members in the school
belonged to small groups which practised knowledge sharing. The pressures of
teaching and research prevented codification and sharing on a wider basis.
Kidwell’s (2001) simple dichotomy of ‘what’s in it for me?” versus ‘what’s in
it for our customer’ is therefore regarded as simplistic. The ‘customer’ does
not become the focus simply because profit is absent. One attractive view
centres on a broader view of human resource development (Stern, 1996).
6. Conclusions
The empirical findings of the current
study provide an insight into the penetration of knowledge management
practices into a typical knowledge intensive organisation such as a university
school. In particular, our findings demonstrate a high level of awareness of
importance with a low level of actual implementation. This suggests that the
school is in the formative stages of embracing knowledge management practices.
From the results presented in this paper,
one may conclude that KM is an important aspect of organisational management
success that needs to be carefully considered. The high level of awareness of
its importance found in this study is an encouraging finding. If planned and
implemented carefully, in alignment with organisational objectives and core
competencies, it may enable the release of the organisational knowledge
resources that will bring ultimate success.
In terms of the implementation of
knowledge management practices, our findings indicate that a major challenge
exists in this area. The results of the study identify an organisation in the
formative stages of this process. The low level of implementation found with
respect to the four types of knowledge management practices investigated, are
the major indicators of this being an emerging area. Findings also indicate
and highlight areas where issues need to be further addressed within the
school being studied. Further research is proposed to explore these issues
including a follow-up survey to ascertain any change in perception without
there having been any change in the management.
When considering the nature of the
organisation being studied, the findings indicate that a major challenge
exists for the school. Whilst operating in an ever-changing world and
environment, the challenge will be to find and implement the most appropriate
mix of knowledge management practices in alignment with the school’s goals and
strategies. This challenge must be embraced and faced head-on in order to
ensure the school’s continued success.
Again, turning to a confessional mode,
there are different personal reactions to the organisational implications.
Recognising the evidence of management disinterest in KM gives impetus for
considering external linkages to obtain sustenance and support for KM. Given
the affinity of KM and consulting it raises the question of future
possibilities. Rather than waiting for KM to be adopted, perhaps as a
management fad or with a technology emphasis, the informal tactics practised
centre on using small internal communities of practice supplemented by
linkages to external networks. This latter approach may not necessarily
provide examples of best practice however it confirms an ever present
awareness of both deficiencies and potentialities while stimulating the
members to provide teaching and research within the ability of their
resourcing.
7. Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Jay Leibowitz for the
subtitle, from a chapter in his volume, (1998) Information technology
management: A knowledge repository: CRC Press, NY.
References
- Albert, S. and K. Bradley (1997)
Managing knowledge: Experts, agencies and organizations, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
- Arthur Andersen (1998) The Knowledge
Management Practices Book, Arthur Andersen, January, 1998.
- Bassi, L. J. and M. E. van Buren
(2000) New measures for a new era, in (Eds): Morey, D; M. Maybury and B.
Thuraisingham. Knowledge management: Classic and contemporary works, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 355-373.
- Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (2000) The
social life of information, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Massachusetts.
- Budzik, J. and K. Hammond (1999) A
system for the capture, organisation and re-use of expertise, in (Ed) Woods,
L: ASIS ’99 Proceedings of the 62nd annual meeting. Knowledge creation,
organisation and use, Washington DC 31 October to 4 November, 1999.
Information today, Medford, NJ.
- Carneiro, A. (2000) How does knowledge
management influence innovation and competitiveness, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol 4 (2), pp 87-98.
- Carr N. G. (1999) A new way to process
knowledge, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1999, pp 24-25.
- Collison, C. and G. Parcell (2001)
Learning to fly: Practical lessons from one of the world’s leading knowledge
companies, Capstone, Oxford.
- Cook, T. D. (2000) Toward a practical
theory of external validity in (Ed) Bickman, L Validity and social
experimentation: Donald Campbell's legacy Volume 1, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California, pp3-43.
- Crapazano, V. (1986) Hermes dilemma:
The masking of subversion in ethnographic description in (Ed) Clifford, J
and G. E. W. Marcus, Writing culture: The poetics and politics of
ethnography, University of California, Berkeley, pp51-76.
- Cronin, E. and E. Davenport (2001)
Knowledge management in higher education in (Ed) Bernbom, G: Information
alchemy: The art and science of knowledge management, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, pp25-42.
- Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (2000): A
thematic analysis of the thinking in knowledge management in (Eds) Despres,
C. and Chauvel, D. Knowledge horizons: The present and the promise of
knowledge management, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, pp55-86
- DiBella, A. J.; E. C. Nevis and J. M.
Goiuld (1996) Organizational learning style as a core capability in (Eds)
Moingeon, B. and A. Edmondson, Organizational learning and competitive
advantage, Sage Publications, London, pp38-55.
- Dixon, N. M. (2000) Common knowledge:
How companies thrive by sharing what they know, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Drucker, P. F. (1967) The effective
executive, William Heinemann, London.
- Drucker, P. F. (1993) Post-Capitalist
Society, Harper Business, New York.
- Earl, M. J. (2001) Knowledge
management strategies: Towards a taxonomy, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Summer, 2001, vol 18 (5), pp218-233.
- Fruin, W. M. (1997) Knowledge works:
Managing intellectual capital at Toshiba, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Gerlach, M. L. and J. R. Lincoln
(2000): Economic organization and innovation in Japan: Network spin-offs and
the creation of enterprise, in (Ed) von Krog, G; I. Nonaka and T. Nishiguchi
(2000) Knowledge creation: A source of value, Macmillan Press, London,
pp151-196.
- Geertz, C. (1974) From the native’s
point of view. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28,
pp27-45.
- Gibbons, M; C. Limoges; H. Nowotny; S.
Schwartzman; P. Scott and M. Trow (1999) New production of knowledge, Sage
Publications, London.
- Handzic, M. (2001) "Knowledge
Management: A Research Framework", in Proceedings of the 2nd European
Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2001), 8-9 November, Bled.
- Huysman, M and D. de Wit (2002)
Knowledge sharing in practice, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
- Kidwell, J; Vander Linde, K M and
Johnson (2001): Applying corporate knowledge management practices in higher
education. (Ed) Bernbom, G: Information alchemy: The art and science of
knowledge management. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp1-24.
- Klösgen, W and Zytkow, J. M. (1996)
Knowledge discovery in databases terminology, in (Eds) Fayyad, U M; G.
Piatesky-Schapiro; P Smyth and R Uthurusamy, Advances in knowledge discovery
and data mining, AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, California, pp573-592.
- Kludge, J.; W. Stein and T. Licht
(2001) Knowledge unplugged: The McKinsey and Company global survey on
knowledge management, Palgrave, London.
- Lickert, R. (1932/1967) The method of
constructing an attitude scale, in (Ed) Fishbein, M. Readings in attitude
theory and measurement, John Wiley, NY, pp90-95.
- Liebowitz, J. (2000) Building
organisational intelligence: A knowledge management primer, CRC Press, N Y.
- Machlup, F. (1962) The production and
distribution of knowledge in the United States, Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
- Macintosh, A. and J. Stader (1999):
Knowing who know what – skills and capability ontologies. International
symposium on the management of industrial and corporate knowledge. ISMICK99
Pre-proceedings. School of management of Erasmus University of Rotterdam,
Rotterdam.
- Malhotra, Y. (2000) From information
management to knowledge management: “Beyond the hi-tech hidebound” systems.
(Eds) Srikantaiah, T K and M. E. Koenig Knowledge management for the
information professional, pp37-61.
- Mann, M. M.; R. M. Rudman; T. A.
Jenckes and B. C. McNurlin (1991) EPRINET: Leveraging knowledge in the
electric utility industry in (Ed) Prusak, L. (1997) Knowledge in
organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, pp73-97
- Newell, S; J. C. Huang, R. Galliers
and S. L. Pan (2002) Implementing enterprise resource planning and knowledge
management systems in tandem: Fostering efficiency and innovation
complementarity, Information and Organization, vol 13(1), January 2003,
pp25-52.
- Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995) The
Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of
Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
- O’Dell, C. and C. J. Grayson (1998) If
Only we knew what we know, Free Press, NY.
- Oppenheim, A. N. (1992) Questionnaire
design, interviewing and attitude measurement, New edition, Pinter, London.
- Porat, M. (1977) The information
economy: Definition and measurement, OT Special Publication 77-12(1), US
Department of Commerce, Washington DC, May 1977.
- Pratt, M. L. (1986) Fieldwork in
common places, in (Ed) Clifford, J. and G. E. W. Marcus, Writing culture:
The poetics and politics of ethnography, University of California, Berkeley,
pp27-50.
- Schuman, H. and Presser, S.
(1981/1996) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on
question form, wording and context, Sage Publications, California, Thousand
Oaks.
- Savary, M. (1999) Knowledge management
and competition in the consulting industry, California Management Review,
1999, 41 (2), pp95-107.
- Schultze, U. (2000) A confessional
account of an ethnography about knowledge work, MIS Quarterly, 24 (1),
March, 2000, pp3-41.
- Snowden, D. (1999) A framework for
creating a sustainable programme, in (Ed) Rock, Stuart: Knowledge
management: A real guide. Caspian Publishing and IBM, London, pp7-17.
- Snowden, D. (2002) Complex acts of
knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness, Journal of knowledge
management, 6 (2), pp100-111.
- Starbuck, (1992) Knowledge by
knowledge intensive firms in (Ed) Prusak, L. (1997) Knowledge in
organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, pp147-175.
- Stein, E. W. (1995) Organisational
memory: Review of concepts and recommendations for management. International
Journal of Information Management, 15 (1), pp17-32.
- Stern, D. (1996) Human resource
development in the knowledge-based economy: Roles of firms, schools and
governments, in (Ed) Neef, D. The knowledge economy, Butterworth-Heinemann,
London, pp249-265.
- Stewart, T. A. (1997) Intellectual
Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations, New York, Doubleday.
- Trauth, E. M. (1997) Achieving the
research goal with qualitative methods: Lessons learned along the way, in (Eds):
Lee, A. S. Liebenau, J. and DeGross, J. I. Information systems and
qualitative research, Chapman and Hall, London, pp225-245.
- Tukey, J. W. (1977) Exploratory data
analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
- Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales from the
field: On writing ethnography, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Weick, K. E. (1979) The social
psychology of organizing, Second edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading ,
Massachusetts.
- Wenger, E.; R. McDermott and W. M.
Snyder (2002) Cultivating communities of practice, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Wiig, K. M. (1995) Knowledge
management: The central management focus for intelligent-acting
organisations, Schema Press, Arlington, Texas.
|
