How SST Can Develop an Organisations Intellectual Capital - Essay Example

How SST can develop an organisation’s intellectual capital BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE “The only way to cope with a changing world is to keep learning.” (Dixon 1998) Introduction In an organisational environment that requires dynamic change in order to respond to fluctuating market conditions, evolving stakeholder demands, government regulations and competitive activity, an organisation must learn new procedures, ideologies and practices. However, this process is not simplistic as there are substantial volumes of factors that influence the ability of an organisation to achieve change. Many models of change management would tend to suggest that change can be scientific and systematic, negating the influence of the human condition when attempting to inject change into the organisational model. However, Ford, Ford and D’Amelio (2008) indicate that when change is promoted in the organisation, managers often become victim to the irrational and illogical responses of employees that occur as an effort to resist the change. Hence, in an effort to adapt to a changing world, those in the organisation that attempt to obtain change must learn what barriers and challenges exist and develop conceptual models that will assist in realising more effective employee embrace of change. Learning is a fundamental method of improving an organisation’s intellectual capital, the extent to which the total market value of an organisation surpasses its physical and financial assets minus the organisation’s total liabilities (Sveiby 1997). Understanding and having the ability to leverage intellectual capital leads to strong competitive advantages and, in the best case scenario, improves an organisation’s stock price. Intellectual capital consists of human expertise, structural capital and relational capital which all, inter-dependently, contribute to achieving organisational success. The scope of this project is to determine all of the work activities and human-related factors that assist in accomplishing effective change in the pursuit of achieving change project objectives (Nokes 2007). Scope is a foundational factor of project planning which is inclusive of deliverables, delegated tasks, and overall determination of goals (PMI 2008). The scope of this project is conducting analyses of the activities required to achieve change goals, including knowledge management, enhancing effectiveness of the communities of practice model and soft systems thinking which considers soft problems that recognises cultural, psychological and social aspects of inter-group collaboration within the organisational model. The objective of this research is to examine the holistic inter-dependencies of the aforementioned organisational activities and influences in order to determine their relationship to learning, change and their role in improving intellectual capital to bring an organisation substantial advantages. Knowledge management Organisations that require continuing change have a need for collecting information, finding methodologies to effectively store this knowledge, and then ensuring proper dissemination of information throughout the organisational model. In order to elicit effective change, it is necessary that all members of the organisation have access to important information and achieve productive collaborations whilst utilising this knowledge. There are members of the organisation that maintain tacit knowledge, which are specialised skills and expertise that is not easily translated for other organisational members that lack this intelligence. However, in order to make effective organisational changes, communicating and disseminating this tacit knowledge is necessary to build a collaborative change-focused culture. Stover (2004) supports this evaluation, offering that in order to effectively transfer knowledge amongst disparate employee groups, direct interaction and collaboration is critical. However, contemporary organisational managers and leaders recognise that building a team-focused, collaborative culture is conflicted by various psychological, cultural and social factors which conflict the ability to build an effective knowledge culture. In the organisational environment, there are those referred to as constructivists who believe that genuine and relevant knowledge should be based on fact and statistical data and that this information must be segregated from personal values. Others in the organisation maintain beliefs that legitimate knowledge is largely built from social experiences. When this disagreement pervades the organisation, conflict begins to develop in regards to what constitutes practical value of knowledge, making knowledge management a political problem. This is why the soft systems thinking (SST) methodology is effective in building an effective knowledge management system. SST recognises that human factors can serve to enhance or conflict an effective knowledge management system and works to develop methodologies to confront psycho-social conflict in collaborative teams so as to achieve change goals effectively. Hislop (2009) asserts that it is necessary to build a productive knowledge culture which builds more effective inter-group exchanges of knowledge, promoting a legitimate desire in disparate organisational members to accept differing views of what constitutes relevant knowledge and remain dedicated to building a more effective collaboration-focused team culture. SST recognises that an organisation achieves greater value by enhancing employee skills and talents (Maddocks and Beaney 2002). This is facilitated through proper dissemination of knowledge from tacit knowledge holders and transforms these inputs into explicit knowledge, which is unambiguous learning that improves understanding amongst all organisational members. A soft system thinking begins consideration of the potential psychological, cultural or sociological-based hindrances that complicate effective learning and knowledge exchanges in a collaborative team environment. This is the essence of SST, creating a set of tools and methodologies that overcome potential hurdles to define and solve disordered problems that occur in complex systems that are absolutely dependent on human interaction (Checkland 1999). For instance, an accepted model of SST first identifies what constitutes the problem situation. It is necessary to achieve an effective knowledge management system where cooperation is critical to change success to build more productive employee competencies as a factor of organisational intellectual capital. Organisational leadership then constructs a conceptual model which highlights human activity systems and makes a comparison of this model to real-world activities within the organisational environment (Checkland and Scholes 1990). Changes which are feasible and desirable are then determined through this comparative analysis in order to create a practical and realistic set of actions to improve effective knowledge management and knowledge transfer (Wilson and Haperen 2010). Figure 1 illustrates a theoretical conceptual model that might be applicable in SST as it pertains to human activity in the knowledge management process. Figure 1: Human Activity System theoretical conceptual model Source: Starns, J. and Odom, C. (2006). Using knowledge management principles to solve organizational problems, The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 36(2), pp.186-198. As illustrated by Figure 1, this conceptual model recognises culture, infrastructure, aspects of the value chain and tools and links this to work teams and organisational processes necessary to facilitate an effective knowledge management system. Then, utilising either qualitative research methods, such as conducting interviews with real-world organisational members to gain their perspectives and insights, comparisons are made to develop a more relevant model that can assist in reducing conflict and improving collaboration amongst disparate team members. This makes the final model produced with SST methodologies more credible and viable for achieving the ultimate goal of establishing a robust and effective KM system (Robson 1995; Maull and Childe 1993). Learning as a method of implementing change is accomplished, then, through soft systems thinking which examines theoretical approaches to building human-related intellectual capital as compared to the real-world activities and systems that drive human interaction and activity. For instance, of a conceptual model is built on the assumption that establishing a sense of social belonging is the most viable managerial role in facilitating cooperation and real-world qualitative investigation identifies that autonomy would be more motivational in improving collaborative environments, a new model of legitimate human activity is developed as a means of securing enhanced human capital through knowledge management ideology. Communities of practice Communities of practice (CoP) are individuals with disparate skills, talents and attitudes who come together to promote inter-group learning regarding a common skill or objective (Wenger 2005). It is also referred to as a learning community (Buffington 2003). Communities of practice facilitate the sharing of ideas, allows for open expression of problems and concerns, and models the ability to cooperatively solve important organisational problems. In order to facilitate an effective communities of practice model, it is necessary to establish social repertoire which is based on shared symbols, stories, and learning which is developed upon social experiences in the learning group (Bechky 2003). Having defined the social dynamics of communities of practice, SST is a critical methodology for improving CoP outputs and facilitating inter-group learning outcomes. Assume that the objectives of the CoP group is to determine how best to operate an organisation in a sustainable fashion in the educational sector. Assume further that disagreement and conflict ensues regarding productive capital expenditures to improving environmental responsibility within the organisation which conflicts positive social repertoire development. In this case, management charged with development of solutions to these disagreements need to identify the underpinning factors that would be most viable for building a consensus culture. Figure 2 illustrates a theoretical rich picture diagram in sustainability in this sector. Figure 2: Rich Picture Example for Education-based Sustainability Source: http://sustainability-radio.weebly.com/rich-picture.html As illustrated by Figure 2, rich pictures can improve intellectual capital, as it pertains to human capital advantages, as it provides a more holistic window of the conflict scenario by identifying potential stakeholders and processes involved in the change process. Rich pictures are of value in SST as it allows for capturing of different factors related to the learning situation and inspires others in the CoP group to think more abstractly and in-depth about the problem to gain new understandings and considerations, a form of action learning (Checkland and Scholes 1999). If disagreement in the communities of practice group develops as a result of conflicting opinion about the potential impact of environmental sustainability on stakeholders, rich pictures provide a template by which to reassess these presumptions. By allowing all members to participate in the construction of the pictorial diagram, it will theoretically improve social collaboration and motivations to collaborate further. Hence, this particular methodology in SST has improving intellectual capital for the organisation as it pertains to human learning by serving as an effective tool for inspiring social alliances and building a culture of teamwork and cooperation. Team focus and building a culture of team ideology are a source of sustained competitive advantage for an organisation (Bartlett and Ghoshal 2002; Sherman and Lacey 1999). The rich picture follows the CATWOE model of SST, which identifies clients who are either victims or beneficiaries of a new process, actors charged with implementation of a new system, the potential transformations a change objective will elicit, the worldview of members of the CoP group, the ownership of the change, and potential environmental constraints that have influence on final implementation of a new sustainability initiative (Checkland 1999). However, pictorial metaphors that illustrate multiple factors of a change initiative provide for more thoughtful analyses of a situation and promote more social discussion. However, many researchers and institutions believe there are disadvantages to rich pictures in improving intellectual capital (Monash University 2010; Sidhu, Jani and Ramesh 2001). The metaphorical representations on the rich pictures diagram might be difficult to interpret and some organisational members in the CoP group might see it as a joke and therefore be less interactive. It is necessary to explore the potential hindrances of using the rich pictures tool to promote more effective CoP outcomes if exploration of SST is to be unbiased and even-handed. It would be irresponsible to iterate that rich pictures is a completely viable tool for enhancing inter-group socialisation or building important trust and respect amongst disparate team members if there were to be human-related challenges to its effective utilisation in a communities of practice setting. In any event, soft system thinking recognises that bias or prejudice toward a change initiative could be driving conflict within the communities of practice group and rich pictures should theoretically serve as a new learning tool which underpins better social cohesion in the project team. Through the process of allowing the entire CoP group to become involved in the construction of the rich pictures, it theoretically creates a shared understanding of the phenomenon being discussed in the group, a fundamental imperative for building a cohesive organisational culture. Effective change and facilitating productive learning involves the removal of any and all distractions that can occur in the learning process (Kotter 2011). Unlike the systems view of an organisation which negates the influence of psycho-social and cultural barriers to eliciting change, soft systems thinking incorporates these challenges into a new model of conflict resolution and knowledge transfer to build a more productive team methodology as part of an engrained organisational culture belief and value. An extended discussion of SST toward intellectual capital production Thus far, this research endeavour has focused on knowledge management and communities of practice that justify the use of SST methodologies for improving organisational intellectual capital production. SSM, and its effective usage of qualitative inquiries, improves the quality and level of social engagement between manager and employee populations, known to be fundamental methods of improving job satisfaction and organisational commitment (Harris, Kacmar and Witt 2005). Whilst managers begin conducting qualitative interviews that focus on employee perceptions, needs, attitudes and values, it illustrates a dimension of legitimate concern for employees involved in collaborative activities. Trust in today’s organisations is vital for enhancing motivation and building a sense of loyalty toward the achievement of organisational goals. SSM, in its pursuit of comparing established conceptual models with real-world employee behaviours, attitudes and activities, strengthens social cohesion in the organisational culture and improves the dynamics of the leader/member communications exchange. Though not necessarily an integrated component of the soft systems thinking methodology, it is still an important outcome in enhancing an organisation’s competitive advantages by building more productive human capital: dedication to achieving strategic goals. SST, therefore, ensures that change is accepted and welcomed as a result of building more valuable social and professional relationships. Soft systems thinking allows managers the opportunities to elicit such characteristics as empathy, appreciation, positive reinforcement, a genuine desire to provide employees with important support tools, and learn how best to provide skills development. These expressions as a result of qualitative research engagement would be theoretical outcomes of the SST processes, thus building a more effective and motivational learning environment that is so absolutely critical to sustaining long-term competitive advantages for the organisation. Conclusion The only viable method for ensuring change is implemented successfully in the organisation is to ensure continuous learning, as identified by Dixon (1998). In many empirical studies targeting the organisational environment, it has been identified that human factors strongly contribute to the development of an organisation’s intellectual capital. Therefore, having an emphasis on soft systems thinking, which represents these psycho-social and cultural influences, is critical to improving knowledge management and communities of practice ideologies that are known contributors to gaining competitive advantages. Soft systems thinking essentially makes comparisons to conceptual models developed through assumptions and then uses qualitative findings of social, cultural and psychological beliefs and employee characteristics to develop a relevant model by which to enact important change initiatives. SST provides richer and more practical tools to facilitate learning amongst disparate organisational members that translates into better inter-group collaboration and learning. Change in the modern organisation is critical and inevitable and organisational leaders and managers must be equipped with the tools necessary to avoid change resistance. They must also establish effective knowledge management practices and ensure inter-professional collaborations in a communities of practice model to effectively innovate solutions to complex problems plaguing the organisation. SST, and its focus on identifying human behavioural components influencing productivity, serves to enhance learning which, in turn, provides motivational incentives for engaging and embracing in change initiatives. Though there are certainly criticisms of certain soft systems thinking tools, namely the rich pictures methodology, in general the researcher and organisational practitioner perspectives on SST are positive. Most sentiment promotes SST methodologies as being effectual, successful and relevant for building intellectual capital within the organisational model. It would be difficult, based on the volume of available literature and empirical studies on the ideology, to refute that it is largely a viable framework for logical thinking and establishment of a relevant human activities model for imparting learning which, in turn, leads to less change resistance. References Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building competitive advantage through people, MIT Sloan Management Review, January. Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor, Organisation Science, 14(3), pp.312-330. Buffington, J. (2003). Learning communities as an instructional model, in M. Orey (ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. [online] Available at: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/lc.htm (accessed 18 May 2014). Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. Chichester: Wiley. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Chichester: Wiley. Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: the rest of the story, Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp.362-377. Harris, J.K., Kacmar, K.M. and Witt, A.L. (2005). An examination of the curvilinear relationship between leader-member exchange and intent to turnover, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 26, pp.363-378. Hislop, D. (2009). Knowledge Management in Organizations, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kotter, J. (2011). Change management versus change leadership – What’s the Difference?, Forbes Magazine. [online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/07/12/change-management-vs-change-leadership-whats-the-difference/ (accessed 19 May 2014). Maddocks, J. and Beaney, M. (2002). See the invisible and intangible, Knowledge Management, March, pp.16-17. Maull, R. and Childe, S. (1993). A step by step guide to the identification of an appropriate CAPM system, Production Planning and Control, 4(1), pp.69-76. Monash University. (2010). Human activity modelling. [online] Available at: http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/subjects/ims5024/lectures/slidesweek9w.pdf (accessed 18 May 2014). Nokes, S. (2007). The definitive guide to project management, 2nd edn. London: FT Prentice Hall. PMI. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute, Inc. Robson, C. (1995). Real world research. UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Sherman, W.S. and Lacey, M.Y. (1999). Teambuilding for competitive advantage, Graziadio Business Review, 2(4). Sidhu, M., Jani, H. and Ramesh, S. (2001). Critical evaluation of rich pictures as a pictorial technique in SSM for resolving unstructured problems, National Conference on Research and Development in Computer Science, pp.137-143. Starns, J. and Odom, C. (2006). Using knowledge management principles to solve organizational problems, The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 36(2), pp.186-198. Stover, M. (2004). Making tacit knowledge explicit, Reference Services Review, 32(2), pp.164-172. Sveiby, K.E. (1997). The intangible asset monitor, Journal of Human Resource Casting and Accounting, 2(1). Wenger, E.C. (2005). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. [online] Available at: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm (accessed 21 May 2014). Wilson, B. and Haperen, K. (2010). Improving regional policing: a review of protective services: undertaking an audit of a method of analysis using soft systems methodology, International Journal of Police Science & Management, 12(2). Read More