Knowledge Management - Essay Example

Introduction There is a swift change in terms of global knowledge management and transfer in educational s hence leading to an increase in innovation. The paradigm for open innovation has led to a demonstration on the need for exploitation of both internal and external knowledge management and knowledge transfer among educational institutions. There is an increase in pressure among educational institutions in terms of competition, a shorten life cycles in terms of operations and increase in complexity. (Swan et.al, 1999) There is a growing demand in terms the exploration of external resources by educational institutions in order to incorporate innovation, acquire new ideas in terms of management of knowledge and develop new and robust techniques to ensure increased access to academic research. Therefore, increased engagements and partnerships among educational institutions will enable this institutions leverage funding from the government and also reduce the cost of carrying out research activities. (Alvesson and Karreman, 2001) Moreover, there is an increased and growing pressure for these educational institutions to ensure transformation of an ivory-tower mentality among its staff and students into a mindset that is entrepreneurial in nature that will see increased contribution to solving of societal problems through collaboration and sharing of knowledge. This is important since these educational institutions have a growing ability in terms of exploitation of their knowledge based and also commercialization of their intellectual property and technology. (Prusak, 1999) Therefore the aspect of knowledge transfer and knowledge management will influence inter-educational institutions and industry and these institutions collaboration hence developing strategies to support open innovation. Therefore, these strategy of collaboration among educational institutions through the aspect of the transfer of knowledge and its management has become a very important in terms of innovation and development of innovation mechanism that will ensure stronger partnership links between these educational institutions. The focus of this research paper is therefore to give an overview of knowledge management and transfer in accordance to educational institutions and the factors that influence the transfer of this knowledge. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) Factors that impact knowledge transfer between educational institutions The factors that ensure smooth and effective knowledge transfer between institutions include; 1. Characteristic of knowledge sender According to Szulanski (1996), the characteristics of the knowledge sender determines how the knowledge will be transferred. For instance, in order for the knowledge between educational institutions to be transferable, one or more educational institutions has to detach the knowledge from its current environment and abstract it. This activities will involve the detachment of the knowledge from one context to another, carrying out the transfer process and the finally making sure the knowledge is applicable in this new current context. Therefore, different educational institutions or parties within a single institution may be at different contexts in terms of the knowledge they contain in different formats. This therefore may affect the way this knowledge is share across the parties involved hence need for detachment of knowledge from one context to another. However, ambiguity may arise when it becomes difficult in relating effects and consequences of the phenomenon or knowledge to the initial state. Therefore, with the advantages involved in detachment of knowledge from its original context for it to be shared leas to an increase in ambiguity. The reason associated with the detachment of knowledge into the appropriate context enables a complete understanding of the knowledge and limitation of resources. Therefore the transfer of knowledge among educational institutions have to be put in a common context and parties involved should be aware of the ambiguities that may arise. (McCampbell et al, 1999) 2. Knowledge characteristic The knowledge to be transferred is characterized by embededness i.e. the knowledge is embedded in e.g. tools, people, and routines and is termed to be tacit. (Nonaka, 1994). Therefore, the value of a certain price of knowledge can only be realized when it is presented in an effective and compatible context. Therefore, in some instances, the transfer of knowledge may be difficult due to the context-bond and embedded nature of knowledge. According to Becerra-Fernandez et al. (2001), the sharing of explicit knowledge can be done through forms of communication and media. However, this kind of sharing is not possible in case of knowledge that is tacit. Therefore the knowledge transfer between institutions is influenced by the mode of conversion of knowledge. Becerra-Fernandez et al therefore states that this tacit knowledge can be communicated through a shared understanding between the parties involved. In some cases, the tacit knowledge must be converted to explicit knowledge before any sharing can be done. Nonaka (1994) states that there are four modes which can be used for knowledge conversion. This include, from tacit to tacit, explicit to explicit, tacit to explicit or explicit to tacit. In the tacit to tacit mode conversion, the reason for a need to acquire tacit knowledge is because it is difficult for humans to perceive and explain this kind of knowledge. The explicit to explicit conversion involves social interactions that are aimed at reconfiguring the available information by categorizing, sorting, adding and decontextualizing the explicit knowledge. The process of mutual interactions over time leads to an expansion tacit to explicit or explicit to tacit modes. Therefore, for educational institutions to be transfer knowledge effectively, the process is determined by the characteristics of the knowledge. 3. The relationship between the appropriate partners involved. In the Knowledge transfer process, it should be noted knowledge cannot flow by itself i.e. human subjects acting within a contextual environment enable the transfer. Also, effective as and strong relationship as a contextual factor between the educational institutions is essential for the knowledge transfer success. Therefore, the realization of knowledge transfer depends not only on the people who plan, interpret, develop, organize, execute and use this knowledge, but also on its specific situation and context. Therefore, for the success of transfer of knowledge between educational institutions, the selection of appropriate partners is key since it ensures information flows smoothly and in the right format and context. (Snowden, 2000) Therefore good relationship between the educational institutions and partners involved will ensure the practical differences between the partners. Also, a friendly relationship enables to bridge communication differences and enables this partners to discuss their differences openly in terms of the approach to the knowledge management and ensure easy transfer of this knowledge. Therefore, the selection of the appropriate partner’s i.e. educational institutions to share this knowledge, ensures that knowledge is transferred effectively and also effective implementation areas that may require collaboration from the knowledge shared. (Davenport et al., 1999) 4. Cultural Awareness. The culture of the different organizations is a key dimension in term of the transfer of knowledge. For instance, there is a difference in the ways different educational institutions organize their knowledge. Therefore the understanding of these different culture ensure effective communication hence influencing the transfer of knowledge between these educational institutions. According to Prusak (1999), the understanding of the different cultures of these educational institutions ensure a positive dialogue and interest in cultural background hence stimulating enthusiasm. 5. Language Language is one of the factors that promote knowledge transfer between educational institutions. It is related to both the way people use the same language and also the differences in natural languages. Therefore to ensure the success of the transfer of knowledge, the clarity of language is vital. However, in instances where different institutions use different languages to deliver knowledge, the sharing of these knowledge to other institutions may be difficult and expensive since when an advanced knowledge is transferred, these knowledge needs to be coded and translated to a common language for all the institution to benefit. (Sveiby, 1999) 6. Motivation Educational institutions may be motivated to transfer and share knowledge due to the need to solve a specific problem on an areas of research that is under study. This therefore creates need to seek and accept knowledge from other institutions i.e. this will make the educational institution have a common reason for collaboration in terms of knowledge sharing and transfer. (Nurmi, 1999) 7. The channel of transfer of knowledge A variety of channels can be used to transfer knowledge and this include networking events, workshops, surveys, case studies, development of ICT systems, business support and technical assistance, partnerships and building activities, exchanged of personnel and institutional support. Therefore, it is clear that the selection of an appropriate channel for the transfer of knowledge ensures the success of the task of transferring and sharing knowledge. The channel used for the sharing of information between educational institutions should be reliable and affordable to ensure the other partner’s competence in a certain files is improved through the sharing of knowledge. (Wiig, 1997) Conclusion The aspect of knowledge management and transfer is a key concept in modern organizational and business world. Therefore there has been extensive input in term of research in this aspect with educational institutions investing a lot of funds into this area of study. Also, it can be conclude that the aspect of knowledge management and transfer is defined in a broad and abstract way in reference to the epistemological debate derived from the Western philosophy, dating back to the Greek era. Therefore with increased interest in knowledge management, researchers in educational institutions specializing in information systems have diversified this aspect of knowledge management and transfer into another category of information systems referred to as knowledge management systems (KMS). A large number of projects and activities in many educational institutions can be considered to be contributing to the aspect of knowledge. This projects involve creation of development plans, ways of monitoring and sharing of information. Therefore, many institutions are focusing on implementing initiatives and projects that are that have a focus on knowledge. In these institutions there is emergence of knowledge teams and team leaders. However, very few institutions have fully implemented knowledge management and transfer aspects in all their operations. Therefore in an educational system characterized with a lot of uncertainties, the only solution for educational institutions is to adopt knowledge based management projects. It has been found that only those educational institutions that create knowledge and transfers it appropriately within their scope operations can be successful. This is because of the ever changing educational environment hence requiring the management to anticipate such changes and adopt appropriate and faster ways of knowledge and actions based on the knowledge. Lastly, it has been found that the sharing of explicit knowledge can be done through forms of communication and media. However, this kind of sharing is not possible in case of knowledge that is tacit. Therefore this tacit knowledge can be communicated through a shared understanding between the parties involved. The reason for a need to acquire tacit knowledge is because it is difficult for humans to perceive and explain this kind of knowledge. It was also found that there are factors that influence the transfer of knowledge between educational institutions. These include the characteristic of knowledge, the characteristic of a transfer, the relationship between the appropriate partners involved, the cultural awareness, language and motivation. References [1]. Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kuhn, O., & Sintek, M.  (1999). Toward a technology for organizational memories.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 185-199).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.  [2]. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. [3]. Albert, S., & Bradley, K. (1997).  Managing knowledge:  Experts, agencies and organizations.  Cambridge, United Kingdom:  Cambridge University Press. [4]. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001).  Odd couple:  Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management.  Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1015. [5]. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169. [6]. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001).  Organizational knowledge management:  A contingency perspective.   Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-56. [7]. Cohen, D. (1998).  Managing knowledge in the new economy.  New York:  The Conference Board. [8]. Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1999).  Successful knowledge management projects.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 89-107).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [9]. Drucker, P. F. (1999).  Knowledge-worker productivity:  The biggest challenge.  California Management Review, 41(2), 79-94. [10]. Echeverri-Carroll, E. L. (1999).  Knowledge flows in innovation networks:  A comparative analysis of Japanese and U.S. high-technology firms.  Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 296-303. [11]. Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30. [12]. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).  Knowledge management:  An organizational capabilities perspective.  Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214. [13]. Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001).   General perspectives on knowledge management:  Fostering a research agenda.  Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-22. [14]. Hackett, B. (2000).  Beyond knowledge management:  New ways to work and learn.  New York:  The Conference Board. [15]. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988).  Organizational learning.  American Review of Sociology, 14, 319-346. [16]. Lucier, C. E., & Torilieri, J. D. (1999).  Why knowledge programs fail:  A CEO’s guide to managing learning.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.),The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 262-279).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [17]. Martinez, M. N. (1999).  The collective power of employee knowledge.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 319-325).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [18]. McCampbell, A. T., Clare, L. M., & Glitters, S. H. (1999).  Knowledge management:  The new challenge for the 21st century.  Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(3), 172-179. [19]. Myers, P. S., & Swanborg, Jr., R. W. (1999).  Packaging knowledge.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 200-203).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [20]. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1999).  The concept of ba:  Building a foundation of knowledge creation.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 37-51).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [21]. Nurmi, R.  (1999). Knowledge-intensive firms.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 168-179).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [22]. Prusak, L. (1999).  What’s up with knowledge management?  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 3-7).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.           [23]. Skyrme, D., & Amidon, D. (1999).  The knowledge agenda.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 118-125).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.  [24]. Snowden, D. (1999).  A framework for creating a sustainable knowledge management program.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 52-64).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.  [25]. Sveiby, K. E. (1999).  Tacit knowledge.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 18-27).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. Read More