Knowledge Management in Large and Complex Organizations - Essay Example

Knowledge Management in Large and Complex Organizations Unit Organizations strive to have a common knowledge base so that they are able to communicate similar information to the outsiders. However, because new knowledge comes into existence from time to time coupled with divergent personal views, it is quite difficult to manage the knowledge within an organization. The complexity of an organization may present further challenges in the way knowledge is managed. Complex organizations are characterized by divergent working activities and a myriad of processes, which requires application of varied input. In essence, there is lack of a common platform in which an organization can organize its knowledge. Despite the challenge, interventions have been developed to help in organization of knowledge especially based on new technologies. Knowledge management systems have been embraced by many organizations in an effort to ensure that the dynamics of knowledge are controlled. Researchers have developed divergent views concerning knowledge management. They attribute it to performance, market share, competitive advantage, market positioning, and sustainability of the organization. Despite all these benefits, knowledge management is seen as a thorn in the flesh of large and complex organizations. Large and complex organizations depict complexities and bureaucracy in the management of knowledge. The management of knowledge in large and complex organizations is a tedious process that involves a number of processes, usually involving several people. The involvements of many people in the process create a scenario where knowledge does not reach on time or is corrupted in the process. In order for any knowledge to be approved from the lower cadres to the management of an organization, there is likelihood of conflicts based on the influence of decisions made. According to Franz et al (2002), knowledge ‘islands’ are inevitable in large organizations where there are parities in the knowledge that is embraced by a given group based on common aspects such as being in the same office, department or team. It is noteworthy that the organization has to share common goals; hence, the knowledge at their disposal should ideally be similar. However, complex organizations may serve different purposes, which may require them to adopt some knowledge that varies from the other teams. The management of knowledge in large organizations is cumbersome based on the view that knowledge can occur in various forms. As well put by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p.9) in their model, there are two types of knowledge. Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. They observe that explicit knowledge is what is provided by guidelines that point out on how activities ought to be executed; such knowledge is prevalent in working manuals and procedures. On the other hand, the tacit knowledge is what is acquired through experience. Explicit knowledge is easy to use because each of the users is obliged to abide by the set guidelines. However, for the tacit knowledge, there is a lot of diversity; such creates varied views across individuals. Due to the underlying bureaucracy in complex organizations, it becomes very difficult to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. The explosion of knowledge especially in the 21st century has created a situation where information is available at a click of a button. There has been a dramatic change in how people acquire knowledge. In comparison to the 1990s, where the management determined what the juniors and other stakeholders knew, the scenario has changed. People are able to access information easily and conveniently. This scenario has created complexity in the management of knowledge in large organizations. Through the rapid developments in technology, especially the social media, the transmission of knowledge across the strata has been enhanced. However, the negative side of it is that these platforms are able to convey any form of knowledge, some of which may cause irreparable damages. Knowledge that is not to be shared is also highly vulnerable to exposure due to the many hands that it is exposed to. The scenario created is that of suspicion hence hindering sharing of knowledge. Knowledge has been pointed as one of the most beneficial requirements for organizations in the 21st century. The economy today is heavily relying on knowledge and no organization wants to be left behind. According to Davenport and Prusak (2000), knowledge provides a competitive advantage to an organization. This means that the need for strategic management of knowledge is very vital. As a result, a number of organizations across the world have embraced the use of knowledge management programs. The interest in these programs has necessitated the need for advancement of theories that guide on knowledge management in organizations. Despite the importance of having well managed knowledge, Davenport and Prusak (2000), have pointed out that there is need for an organization to first understand its culture and then develop a workable knowledge management program. Large and complex organizations falls victim of inefficiency of these programs, hence more attention is need when developing these programs. There is always a variation in the adoption of knowledge base on personal or group biases. Large and complex organizations exhibit large teams and have a lot of diversity in terms of their teams. Despite the development of knowledge management systems that ensure that there is proper management of knowledge, it is a daunting task for a large organization to consolidate all the information under one platform. As argued by Choo (1998) in his model, there is the interaction between three processes; sense making, knowledge creation and making of decisions. This means that any knowledge that is adopted should make sense to the people in the organization. The many they are, the higher the chances that some of the knowledge will not make sense to them. On the other hand, at every level, there is the creation of the tacit knowledge; this has to marry with the explicit knowledge so that there is a common knowledge embraced within the organization. Again, there are insurmountable challenges, there is bureaucracy in conversion of the knowledge, and at the same time, and new knowledge keeps on coming up. The knowledge in the organization is required in decision-making, it may not always apply, and therefore management of knowledge for a large organization is presented with challenges. Knowledge management for large organization is cumbersome because of the timidity of knowledge management systems. Knowledge management systems specially focus on reuse of the preexisting knowledge, an aspect that makes it difficult to embrace changes (Gray Southon, Todd & Seneque 2002, p. 1052). Generation of new knowledge is curtailed, this results to reduced creativity in the organization since the personnel get to heavily rely on the systems. The entire organization requires understanding of the knowledge management. This takes time hence creating an avenue for recycling of the old knowledge. While information technology has been embraced in knowledge management, it is apparent the techniques take a traditional approach, hence fostering bureaucracy. If such a scenario occurs to a large organization, then there arises a major problem because the prevailing structures are many. Transfer of knowledge that is based on best practices is a major tool that is used in the large organizations (Fahey & Burbridge 2008, p. 22). This means that the knowledge adopted by the organization has little flexibility. Knowledge management is influenced by the organizational culture. Large and complex organizations may exhibit a complex culture that is likely to influence the management of knowledge within the organization. The culture of an organization forms a very important component of the knowledge that is adopted by the organization. The complex the organization, the higher the chances of having a complex culture, thereby knowledge management presents similar complexities (Oliver & Kondal 2006, p.10). In complex and large organizations, aspects to deal with the rewarding systems, leadership, people, organizational structure and information systems are vital in influencing the knowledge culture that an organization embraces. A myriad of organizational-related factors are evident in complex organizations as opposed to smaller ones (Bolisani & Damiani 2010, p.79). The organizational structures make it difficult for a perfect workability of the management of knowledge. There is interplay between knowledge management and learning capabilities. Learning in a large and complex organization is possible. However, due to the large number of activities and people involved, there is reduced knowledge turnover. Knowledge exchange is quite high in complex organizations; the setback is that adoption of this knowledge is not rampant due to the fact that the organizational structures hinder its implementation (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, p. 23). The learning abilities among the employees within the confines of the organization are lower due to the rigidity of the systems. The motivation among the workers may be high but their adoption of new knowledge is not quite flexible. In conclusion, the management of knowledge is a very important aspect to an organization. The complexity of an organization is a determinant of the ability to handle knowledge through a knowledge management system. Based on the view that knowledge keeps on regenerating from time to time, it is difficult to effectively manage knowledge that comes from a large and complex organizations. Most of the large organizations are characterized by complexities that emanates from their bureaucracies and the structures. References Bolisani, E., & Damiani, F. (2010) Knowledge management in complex environments: The UN peacekeeping. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(4), 76-84. Choo, C. W. (1998) The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions, New York: Oxford University Press. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, K. (1998) Working Knowledge: How organizations manage what they know, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Fahey, D. F., & Burbridge, G. (2008) Application of diffusion of innovations models in hospital knowledge management systems: Lessons to be learned in complex organizations, Hospital Topics, 86(2), 21-31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214588986?accountid=45049 Gray Southon, ,F.C., Todd, R. J., & Seneque, M. (2002) Knowledge management in three organizations: An exploratory study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1047-1059. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231526980?accountid=45049 Nonaka & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press Oliver, S., & Kondal, R. K. (2006), How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of large distributed organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 6-24.  Read More