Knowledge Management Processes & Tools - Dissertation Example

 Knowledge Management Processes & Tools Abstract The expansion of knowledge sharing in all human activities reflects the value given to the particular process. Because of the involvement of knowledge sharing in various tasks, its characteristics are differentiated, in accordance with the conditions of the social, economic or business environment. Under these terms, a wide range of knowledge sharing tools has been developed aiming to respond to the needs of all relevant cases. The forms and the implications of knowledge sharing, in the context of knowledge management, are examined in this paper. Two specific knowledge sharing tools, blogs and intranets, are examined and evaluated – at the level that they can help to understand the contribution of knowledge sharing in the development of knowledge management. The key aspects of knowledge management, as the framework in which knowledge sharing operates, are also examined; particular emphasis is given on the fact that the forms of knowledge sharing tools used for serving the relevant needs of individuals and organizations are many, a fact indicating the lack of an integrated tool for knowledge sharing in both the social and the business context. 1. Introduction In modern market, the need for communication is intensive; effective communication is a prerequisite for the success of various projects, personal or business. In this context, the sharing of knowledge has been considered as of crucial importance in order for various social and economic targets to be achieved. For this reason, a series of theoretical frameworks has been established aiming to help people to understand the value of communication and to choose the tools that would best help them to communicate and share knowledge with other people in the same or different social context. Current paper focused on the various aspects of knowledge management as a key prerequisite of communication in different environments; the most important knowledge management processes and tools are examined and evaluated. Reference is made to knowledge management as part both of social life and organizational activity. Emphasis is given on a particular aspect of knowledge management: the knowledge sharing. The literature published in the specific field has been reviewed aiming to show the role and the challenges of knowledge sharing as a key organizational activity, referring to the main role of knowledge management, as an organizational process; at the same time, two different knowledge management tools are presented and analysed: blogs and intranets. Both of them are likely to operate in different environments, i.e. both at workplace or at home. It is concluded that knowledge management, as part of a specific social or business activity is a significant prerequisite of effective communication. However, the following issue appears: can knowledge sharing tools, as described in this paper, have a standardized form or they are likely to be continuously changed – in order to meet the requirements of specific organizational or social context? The examination of the characteristics and the requirements of knowledge sharing tools has led to the assumption that these tools may change in terms of their operational characteristics and requirements; however, their key form and role remains the same. Moreover, their involvement in communication and knowledge sharing is also likely to be differentiated – under the influence of the local, economic and political conditions. 2. Knowledge management – overview, role In order to understand the potential value and the challenges of knowledge sharing tools, as part of the knowledge management process, it would be necessary to refer, briefly, to the characteristics and the role of knowledge management – as described in the literature published in the specific field. In accordance with Awad (2004) ‘knowledge management is a newly emerging interdisciplinary business model that has knowledge within the framework of an organization as its focus’ (Awad 2004, p.26). A similar definition of knowledge management is included in the study of Wimmer (2004); in accordance with the above researcher, knowledge management is ‘a process of identifying, capturing, retrieving, sharing and evaluating intellectual and knowledge – based assets’ (Wimmer 2004, p.38). At the next level, it is explained that knowledge management can refer to various aspects of organizational activities, involving ‘people, technology and processes in overlapping parts’ (Awad 2004, p.26). From another point of view, Christensen (2003) notes that the importance of knowledge management in modern organizations is not the same; there are organizations which focus on the production of knowledge – being characterized as knowledge organizations – and there are organizations that use knowledge only in regard to their products – these are the industrial organizations (Christensen 2003). Moreover, Maybury et al. (2002) emphasize on the common failure of organizations to appreciate the value of knowledge for their activities; in accordance with the above researchers, this failure can cause severe delays in organizational operations. At the same time, O’Dell et al. (2000) note that organizations that wish to improve their performance in knowledge management need to proceed to the distribution of relevant tasks among their employees; in this way, the chances for the success of each phase of the knowledge management scheme chosen, are increased. In any case, the schemes aiming to improve the knowledge management across the organization have to be based on two different targets: not just the standardization of the performance of existing knowledge management system but also the enhancement of the performance of the particular system (Rollett 2003, p.24). 3. Knowledge sharing as part of knowledge management The criteria on which the knowledge management systems are based are likely to be differentiated in accordance with the tasks, which these systems are asked to develop, or else, the needs that these systems have to respond to. The above issue has been extensively examined in the literature and the empirical research. Especially regarding the knowledge sharing systems – on which this paper focuses – it has been revealed that the routes through which these systems support the sharing of knowledge are not standardized. Taminiau et al. (2009) developed an empirical research – survey through interviews ‘with 29 consultants in the Netherlands’ (Taminiau et al. 2009, p.42). The aim of their study was the identification of the most ‘common knowledge sharing routes’ (Taminiau et al. 2009, p.42) in the field of consultancy; also the level at which knowledge sharing can promote innovation within such environment has been critically examined. The research proved that the knowledge sharing routes available to consultants are likely to be the following three: ‘codified, formal knowledge and informal knowledge sharing’ (Taminiau et al. 2009, p.42). Among the above knowledge sharing route the one that most serves innovation is the ‘informal knowledge sharing’ (Taminiau et al. 2009, p.42). Another important finding of the study is the following one: the promotion of innovation across a particular organization is not depended only on the knowledge sharing management system involved but also on the ability and the willingness of managers to support innovation. Another aspect of knowledge sharing – as part of knowledge management – is examined in the study of Martin et al. (2005); the above researchers tried to identify the level at which knowledge management sharing can help ‘to minimize the gap between business and IT’ (Martin et al. 2005, p.340). It was made clear that knowledge management sharing can help to improve cooperation across organizations especially regarding the use of IT systems in various organizational departments. More specifically, it was proved that knowledge management sharing can influence the relationship between business and IT in the following way: at the first level, ‘knowledge sharing processes between business and IT is defined’ (Martin et al. 2005, p.352); then, ‘the tasks of the relationship managers as facilitators of knowledge sharing are also defined’ (Martin et al. 2005, p.352). In the context of the above view, knowledge management sharing becomes a business initiative in which managers are asked to participate – verifying the necessity of management for the effective development of IT – related projects. In this way, knowledge sharing plays a key role in the enforcement of cooperation across the organization. On the other hand, the role of managers in the success of knowledge sharing policies needs to be clarified. Karlsen (2010) examined the level of involvement of project owners in the development of knowledge sharing schemes – reference is made to knowledge sharing as part of a particular project. The above issue was addressed through a real project, ‘building of new frigates, a project in the Royal Norwegian Navy’ (Karlsen 2010, p.642); through the interviews developed for the above study it was ‘revealed that uncertainty information and knowledge have frequently been communicated and shared’ (Karlsen 2010, p.642). The above finding leads to a series of important conclusions: a) asymmetric information problems within organization can be effectively resolved using appropriate sharing knowledge methods, b) the project owner has a key role in the management of asymmetric information in all the phases of the project and c) the effective sharing of knowledge can lead to the increase of trust and cooperation among the participants/ employees. A similar issue is highlighted in the study of Hedgebeth (2007); in the above study emphasis is given on the importance of cooperation for the effective sharing of knowledge across the organization. Moreover, it is noted that in modern organizations, the full success of knowledge sharing schemes is depended on another, quite important term: the technology involved in the relevant initiative. Reference is made specifically to the importance of advanced technology features like ‘blogs, wikis and online repositories’ (Hedgebeth 2007, p.49) for the development of effective knowledge sharing schemes in modern firms. The use of knowledge sharing tools by individuals is an issue which has been extensively examined in the literature; it seems that individuals are not aware of the full capabilities and benefits of knowledge sharing tools – a fact which is may related to the continuous development of technology; people of low economic status cannot have access to advanced knowledge sharing tools. However, there are cases of knowledge sharing tools which are accessible to all; this is the case of blogs – analyzed below; as for intranets, the other knowledge sharing tool presented in this paper, their cost is rather high, making them difficult to be used by many people in their daily activities; however, in workplace, people can share knowledge through intranets – if they are established – without having to cover the relevant cost which, in this case, is covered by the entrepreneur or the state – in the case of intranets within organizations of the public sector. Knowledge sharing, as part of the knowledge management, can have various implications for the users of the relevant systems or tools – referring to the knowledge sharing systems and tools through which a high volume of data can be exchanged. A key implication of knowledge sharing is the differentiation of its effects in accordance with the targets set by the participants – those who participate in a knowledge sharing scheme or those who use a specific knowledge-sharing tool. For instance, knowledge sharing can be a means for developing illegal activity – when the information exchanged/ transmitted is not legally acquired or when it is false. Because of this risk, the perceptions of individuals on knowledge sharing are often negative. This problem is highlighted in the study of Lin (2007) where reference is made to the difference of ‘co-worker congruence on knowledge sharing among individuals with different level of exchange ideology’ (Lin 2007, p.457). The differences in the perceptions and the willingness of individuals regarding knowledge sharing are also highlighted in the study of Ardichvili et al. (2006); in the above study it is explained that ‘the perceptions of individuals on competitiveness, their views on culture and the their desire for power’ (Ardichvili et al 2006, p.94) could lead to the differentiation in the use of knowledge sharing tools by these individuals. Despite the importance of knowledge sharing for modern organizations, the support of the specific activity is rather limited. The above problem is highlighted in the study of Perez-Araos et al. (2007) where the challenges related to the implementation of ‘virtual knowledge sharing networks (KSNs)’ (Perez-Araos et al. 2007, p.153); it is concluded that the development of knowledge management systems in modern organizations can face delays mostly because the employees of the organizations involved are not informed on the process of the relevant projects. Moreover, it has been proved that ‘the main barrier to the implementation of best practices, quality models and improvement tools is a lack of knowledge about these initiatives’ (Perez-Araos et al. 2007, p.153); it is assumed that the provision of necessary information to the employees on the relevant plans it is a prerequisite for the success of the relevant efforts. Another important finding of the above study is the following one: the identification of best organizational practices, the check of quality and the use of appropriate techniques for ensuring the improvement/ increase of product/ service involved. 4. Sharing knowledge in practice – knowledge management tools for sharing knowledge In accordance with the issues discussed above, knowledge sharing can have a critical role in the development of a series of activities; moreover, knowledge sharing sets the terms under which various projects need to be developed – for securing their success. The important of sharing knowledge can be realized by referring to two different knowledge-sharing tools, blogs and intranets. The use of the above tools can significantly increase knowledge sharing within a specific social or business environment. Moreover, it is proved that the value of knowledge sharing could be higher than initially estimated. However, it has been also made clear that the rules related to the use of these tools need to be followed carefully; no violation of these rules can be accepted otherwise the use of these tools in the context of a specific knowledge sharing activity could be considered as unverified – with all the implications, social and legal, that this result could have. 4.1 Blogs as knowledge sharing tools Using a broad term for blog, the specific knowledge management tool could be described as follows: a blog is ‘an easy-to-publish web page consisting primarily of periodic articles posted by date, usually with the newest entry at the top’ (Sharing Knowledge Management, 2011). In other words, blogs are websites, which can be developed through a server that provides such service; in the specific case, the server hosts the blog only under the terms that the owner of the blog will follow the rules of the host server. In any violation of these rules the blog stops to operate. The blog hosting companies operating globally are many; these firms support the development of blogs through appropriate blogging tools, like the ‘Blogger’ which is mostly preferred by individuals/ organizations because of the quality of the control and the support provided. Other well-known blogging tools are the following ones: WordPress and Typepad. In any case blog, as a knowledge-sharing tool, has similar characteristics of the e-mail and the forums; all these tools are characterized as ‘manual communication mechanisms’ (Bernard 2008, 140), which can be used for knowledge sharing in different environments. 4.2 Intranets and knowledge sharing Intranets are systems which are developed using a series of devices – usually PCs, but also devices of other characteristics, like a fax; these devices are connected – using appropriate equipment so that the exchange of information among them to be feasible. Through the years, the need for the physical connection of these devices was eliminated. Today, the wireless intranet is a common knowledge-sharing scheme used in organizations of different sizes and sectors. Intranet is based on a website which has similar characteristics with an external website with the exception that the intranet’s website is accessible only through a username password, provided only to those who are verified by the relevant organization. This means that the procedure for the development of an intranet is similar with that of a web site with the additional requirement for extra rules regarding the safety of the system – taking into consideration the fact that the information stored in intranets is valuable (Figure 1 & 2, Appendices). 4.3 Critical comparison of blogs with intranets – as tools for knowledge sharing In accordance with the issues discussed above, blogs are differentiated from intranets in a series of operational and technical characteristics and requirements, the most important of which would be summarized as follows: blogs are accessible from everywhere – under the terms that there is access to the Internet – and with no restriction in regard to their visitor, i.e. there are no requirement of a membership for accessing a blog; the specific characteristic of blogs increases their popularity among people of different ages and economic/ social status. On the other hand, intranets, which can be also accessible from outside – i.e. out of the place/ building where the intranet is established, as explained above, have a specific restriction in regard to their access: the user needs to be verified by the organization in the facilities of which the intranet is established. In this context, the visitor of an intranet needs to have a username/ password for accessing the intranet – a requirement that does not exist in blogs. In this context, in intranets, the knowledge sharing is limited among the members of the organization that owns the intranet; in the case of blogs the knowledge sharing can be quite extensive. However, at this point, the following problem appears: because of the lack of control on the identify of the user, blogs can often be used for the development of illegal activity, referring especially to the publication of material which has been illegally acquired or to the publication of false information – such case does not exist in intranet due to the control of the identity of the user. From a technical/ economic point of view, the above two knowledge sharing tools are highly differentiated; blogs can be developed just by entering a server and create a web-page with specific technical characteristics; there are no financial requirements for developing a blog, while the time required for its establishment is also quite limited – just a few minutes. On the other hand, the intranet usually requires a high budget – unless it is developed at home where its cost can be quite low – and a significant amount of time. For this reason, the solution of using an intranet as a knowledge-sharing tool is preferred by organizations, which are highly depended on knowledge management for their daily operations. 5. Conclusion The use of knowledge sharing tools in everyday life has been proved to be extensive; moreover, the access to these tools, at least those presented in this paper, seems to be quite easy. However, the terms of use of these tools are often violated. The effects of this failure on the validity of the knowledge sharing process are immediate – and can be severe. The above problem does not seem to affect the importance of knowledge sharing for social and economic life. In fact, knowledge sharing has been found to be quite valuable both for the social life and for the success of various projects. Within organizations also, knowledge sharing can be quite important helping to increase cooperation among employees, a fact that positively affects the organizational performance. On the other hand, the use of knowledge sharing tools have been proved to have certain implications: people may not realize the effects or the limits of knowledge sharing; the specific activity cannot be used as a means for achieving targets which are opposed to the law or which can harm other people – even if there is no a clear opposition with a particular legal text. At the next level, the examination of the operational and technical characteristics of knowledge sharing tools has led to the assumption that these tools cannot guarantee the safety of the data/ information exchanged; from this point of view, knowledge sharing can have severe effects for the users of knowledge sharing tools. It is concluded that the value of knowledge sharing, as part of knowledge management, cannot be ignored or underestimated; however, measures should be taken – not just by the users but also by the state in terms of the relevant legislation – so that the particular activity to be fully aligned with the actual role of knowledge management as a means for promoting communication and collaboration. References Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., Stuedemann, R. (2006) "Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 Iss: 1, pp.94 - 107 Awad, E. (2004) Knowledge Management. Pearson Education India Chieh-Peng, L. (2007) "To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator", Personnel Review, Vol. 36 Iss: 3, pp.457 – 475 Christensen, P. (2003) Knowledge management: perspectives and pitfalls. Copenhagen Business School Press DK Despres, C., Chauvel, D. (2000) Knowledge horizons: the present and the promise of knowledge management. Butterworth-Heinemann Firestone, J. (2003) Enterprise information portals and knowledge management. Butterworth-Heinemann Frid, R. (2000) Infrastructure for Knowledge Management. iUniverse Gottschalk, P. (2007) Knowledge management systems in law enforcement: technologies and techniques. Idea Group Inc (IGI) Hedgebeth, D. (2007) "Making use of knowledge sharing technologies", VINE, Vol. 37 Iss: 1, pp.49 – 55 Karlsen, J. (2010) "Project owner involvement for information and knowledge sharing in uncertainty management", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 3 Iss: 4, pp.642 – 660 Maier, R. (2004) Knowledge management systems: information and communication technologies for knowledge management. New York: Springer Martin, V., Hatzakis, T., Lycett, M., Macredie, R. (2005) "Cultivating knowledge sharing through the relationship management maturity model", Learning Organization, The, Vol. 12 Iss: 4, pp.340 – 354 Maybury, M., Thuraisingham, B. (2002) Knowledge management: classic and contemporary works. MIT Press O’Dell, C., Elliott, S., Hubert, C. (2000) Knowledge Management: A Guide for Your Journey to Best-Practice Processes. APQC Perez-Araos, A., Barber, K., Munive-Hernandez, E., Eldridge, S. (2007) "Designing a knowledge management tool to support knowledge sharing networks", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 2, pp.153 - 168 Rollett, H. (2003) Knowledge management: processes and technologies. Springer Ruggles, R. (1997) Knowledge management tools. Butterworth-Heinemann Swift, M., Balkin, D., Sharon F., Matusik, S. (2010) "Goal orientations and the motivation to share knowledge", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 3, pp.378 - 393 Taminiau, Y., Smit, W., de Lange, A. (2009) "Innovation in management consulting firms through informal knowledge sharing", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 1, pp.42 – 55 Τsai, J. (2005) Machine learning applications in software engineering. World Scientific, 2005 Wimmer, M. (2004) Knowledge management in electronic government: 5th IFIP International Working Conference, KMGov 2004, Krems, Austria, May 17-19, 2004: proceedings. Springer White, D. (2002) Knowledge mapping and management. Idea Group Appendices Figure 1 – Intranet – a typical form/ structure (source: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=intranets) Figure 2 – Intranet – the website, potential format (source: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=intranets) List of resources – order of appearance (Awad 2004, p.26) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=Xct0U4Ssm-4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=knowledge+management&hl=el&ei=hYFrTciAKMqEhQfP39HsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ----------------- (Wimmer 2004, p.38) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=IhWimN9f2UIC&pg=PA38&dq=knowledge+management+tools&hl=el&ei=QIJrTZiRKI20hAfY07XyDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=knowledge%20management%20tools&f=false ------------------ (Christensen 2003) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=BxUU-23ESeUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=knowledge+management&hl=el&ei=hYFrTciAKMqEhQfP39HsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ----------------------- Maybury et al. (2002) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=Ckb6GcUq31MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=knowledge+management&hl=el&ei=hYFrTciAKMqEhQfP39HsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false ----------------------- O’Dell et al. (2000) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=AVL5p-7XAM4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=knowledge+management&hl=el&ei=hYFrTciAKMqEhQfP39HsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false ---------------------- (Rollett 2003, p.24) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=f2dp4NPSY5UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=knowledge+management&hl=el&ei=hYFrTciAKMqEhQfP39HsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false -------------------- (Taminiau et al. 2009, p.42) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1771526 -------------------- (Martin et al. 2005, p.340) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1502627&show=html (Karlsen 2010, p.642) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1881961&show=pdf (Hedgebeth 2007, p.49) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1601000&show=html (Lin 2007, p.457) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1602304 (Ardichvili et al 2006, p.94) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1602304 (Perez-Araos et al. 2007, p.153) http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1593391& Sharing Knowledge Manaement, 2011, [online]. Available at http://www.kstoolkit.org/Blogs (Bernard 2008, 140) – online book http://books.google.com/books?id=ojQvDRdVnVsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=knowledge+management+tools&hl=el&ei=QIJrTZiRKI20hAfY07XyDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false Read More