Management of Information Systems - Assignment Example

nаgеmеnt Infоrmаtiоn Systеms 1. Describe why the authors are emphasising the need for doing knowledge management in their research.  3 marks Firestone and McElroy (2005) are emphasising the need for doing knowledge management (KM) because according to them, “doing knowledge management” has oftentimes been confused with “practicing KM”. According to the two authors’ analysis, it is often assumed that people and organisations are involved in doing KM when they engage in practices such as content management, information technology, customer relationship management, use of “knowledge cafes”, communities of practice, storytelling, and social network analysis. However, the authors suggest that the aforementioned practices are only embodiments of “practicing KM” and are a drift from the real “doing KM”. As such, Firestone and McElroy (2005) opine that it may be possible to conclude that KM as an official, planned endeavour has yet to be done. Based on the thinking of the two authors, doing KM needs to involve activities that enhance the level of knowledge processing in an organisation. As such, doing KM must go beyond just doing anything that might have a positive impact on an organisation’s bottom line or worker effectiveness. Instead, doing KM must involve deliberate efforts and processes that seek to change the organisation’s existing pattern of knowledge processing so as enhance both the level of knowledge processing and its outcomes such as improving the effectiveness of employees and enhancing an organisation’s bottom line. Another point that is addressed by Firestone and McElroy (2005) is that because of the uncertainty involved in defining ‘doing KM’, many organisations fail to evaluate whether their interventions that are deemed to be KM interventions are actually what they represent. Thus, it is argued that only by analysing the contributions of KM projects to the quality of knowledge processing can organisations be deemed to be doing KM or not. Along this line, it can be argued that it is only when organisations reflect deeply in regard to their knowledge and knowledge processing that they can determine the impact of their interventions on knowledge processing. This underlines the importance of doing KM. 2. Explain the important business processes and outcomes that the authors have described in their framework (Figure 1). 6 marks Firestone and McElroy (2005) have described a three-tier framework that shows the relationship between the KM environment, the knowledge processing environment and the business processing environment. Within the KM environment are two key elements: KM and KM outcomes (Firestone & McElroy, 2005). KM includes the processes that seek to change an organisation’s current pattern of knowledge processing so as to enhance both the level of knowledge processing and the associated outcomes. Examples of KM practices include the practices that an organisation engages in to obtain missing expertise in unfamiliar situations, knowledge sharing, safeguarding of knowledge, and capturing and inventorying of knowledge (Wiig, 1999). As well, as part of the KM process, an organisation can come up with specific policies to guide the KM activities and set priority procedures to be followed in managing these activities (Wiig, 1999). KM produces seven outcomes (Christensen, 2005), which are connected to the knowledge processing environment as outlined by Firestone and McElroy (2005). The seven outcomes are as follows, based on Christensen (2005). First is integrating, which focuses on how organisations can become better in terms of exploiting the knowledge that they already possess in relation to coming up with new rules, routines or standards that are appropriate in making use of the existing knowledge. The second outcome is producing, which is about ensuring that knowledge is protected from competitors, and also restructuring the organisation to ensure that employees feel more comfortable about creating and sharing knowledge. The third outcome is creating knowledge, which focuses on combining knowledge in a different way from what was done in the past so as to solve particular problems more innovatively. The next outcome is transferring knowledge, which involves having access to knowledge that already prevails but which was formerly not reachable. Another outcome is measuring the utilisation of knowledge in an effort to link KM to other organisational outcomes in a positive way. The sixth KM outcome involves retaining knowledge through processes such as documenting knowledge or holding on to the people who possess that knowledge, for instance employees, by offering the necessary incentives. Lastly, reflecting is a KM outcome that involves critically evaluating knowledge and management processes with an aim of creating a better foundation for comprehending important KM drivers as opposed to offering specific advice on how to practice KM. These outcomes are connected to the knowledge processing environment, which is described next. According to Firestone and McElroy (2005), knowledge processing encompasses knowledge processing strategies, knowledge processing rules and policies, knowledge processing infrastructures, innovation programmes and learning programmes. The idea behind knowledge processing is to ensure that the activities that are undertaken as part of KM enhance knowledge processing and its results as emphasised by Firestone and McElroy (2003). Therefore, the aforementioned strategies, rules, infrastructures, learning programmes and innovation programmes need to be implemented in a manner that ensures that an organisation enhances the way its processes its knowledge. The outcomes of knowledge processing are connected to what happens in the business processing environment. This includes such things as an organisation’s business strategies, organisational models, human resource (HR) strategies, various business processes, marketing strategies, and product strategies. The processes involved here need to be structured in a manner that reflects the vision and objectives that the organisation has set out to accomplish. The business processing environment in turn leads to outcomes that benefit the organisation such as increasing market share, profitability, growth, being ethical and ensuring sustainability (Firestone & McElroy, 2005). 3. Do you believe the authors’ study addresses the importance of doing KM research? 6 marks Yes. I believe that the study by Firestone and McElroy (2005) addresses the importance of doing KM research because the study has attempted to address some of the issues that have been confounding the area of KM. The confusion around KM can be traced back to the fact that even defining KM is an arduous task. For instance, Wallace (2003) asserts that some authors have deliberately avoided the need to define KM. At the same time, those authors who have attempted to define the concept have generated different meanings from the phenomenon. Wallace (2003) also points out that Firestone and McElroy provided a very simple and less ambiguous definition of KM: that it is a management discipline that tries to improve organisational knowledge processing. One other author has noted that KM is the “management of organisational knowledge for creating business value and generating a competitive advantage”, while others have indicated that KM “involves a range of processes including creating, sharing, integrating, storing, and reusing knowledge” (Wallace, 2003, p. 3). The two points – that there are many definitions of KM and that some authors have avoided giving a definition of the concept – serve as an indicator that KM is an area that still needs much research. To add on the issues around the definition of KM, Firestone and McElroy (2005) have argued that there is still a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes “doing KM” and “practicing KM”. For instance, the authors have pointed out that many of the activities that organisations do as part of their KM are actually part of practicing KM. Therefore, since what KM entails is not very clear, many organisations engage themselves in practices such as content management, social network analysis, information technology, use of “knowledge cafes”, communities of practice, customer relationship management, storytelling, and social network analysis, and pass them off as part of their doing KM. It is argued that in reality, many organisations that think they have done KM may not have done it at all. As noted by Firestone and McElroy (2005), there is need to understand knowledge processing, the nature of knowledge and KM so as to understand the significance of KM. In addition, there is need to demystify the notion that organisations can do KM simply by doing anything that may enhance the effectiveness of the people in the organisation. Specifically, the authors have indicated that activities that are done as part of KM should be focused on enhancing knowledge processing. Further, the KM projects that are undertaken must be assessed to determine their contributions to the quality of knowledge processing as well as the outcomes related to the knowledge. To achieve the conditions stated by Firestone and McElroy (2005), organisations need to understand the relationships between terms such as knowledge, organisational learning, and the processes involved in planning and decision-making and how they can be used to enhance knowledge processing. All these are areas that still need to be studied in order to understand what KM means for organisations. More importantly, Firestone and McElroy (2005) have noted in their conclusion that KM is a field that is featured by a heap of confusion regarding its conceptual foundation and scope. Consequently, many practitioners tend to view KM interventions as those that are referred to by that name even if they are not. The fact that the authors have attempted to unravel the confusion in the area of KM means that there is still a lot more that can be done on the subject. And the points addressed by the two authors can be used as a starting point for further research on KM. References Christensen, P. H. (2005). The wonderful world of knowledge management. In A. F. Buono & F. Poulfelt (Ed.), Challenges and issues in knowledge management (pp. 337-364). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information age Publishing. Firestone, J. M. & McElroy, M. W. (2003). Key issues in the new knowledge management. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science. Firestone, J. M. & McElroy, M. W. (2005). Doing knowledge management. The Learning Organization. 12(2), 189-212. Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport, CT: Greenwood publishing Group, Inc. Wiig, K. M. (1999). Introducing knowledge management into enterprise. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge management handbook (pp. 3-1–3-40). New York: CRC Press LLC. Read More