Copying «“ or distributing m print or electronic forms without written = permission of Idea Group Inc... Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission
Trang 1The Organizational Characteristics of Knowledge-Centricity 115
is apparent, acting as a formidable barrier to knowledge sharing This is strongly allied to the individual, and while within the organization there is arespect and acknowledgement of the value of knowledge between individuals and co- workers, recognition of individual knowledge by managers appears absent This links closely with the idea that the management of knowledge is not firmly embedded within organizational culture
It should be emphasized that the research conducted refers explicitly to Black and Decker’s European Design Centre Although designated a primary global design centre, exactly how the EDC mirrors other areas of the organization is not clear and further research is needed to corroborate these findings, tf generalizations are to be made However, given the observations based on the EDC, itis unlikely thatit can be viewed as knowledge-centric
In using such a matrix, the presence and importance of a characteristic requires
a detailed investigation of the organization’s environment, processes and activities This is beneficial both internally and externally In the former category, better use of knowledge assets and resources can bring substantial improvements in work practices, motivation of staff, more efficient use of technologies and greater understanding of the management of knowledge This impacts on the external environment by providing customers with better designed and made products, together with improved service based on knowledge of the market and their target audience A greater attention to how knowledge can be harnessed within an organization also creates greater awareness of the external environment and the ways in which competing organizations deal with their knowledge assets
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group PY = Inc Copying «“ or distributing m print or electronic forms without written =
permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 2116 Pempberion & Stonehouse
Of course, the OCM is not without its problems and can be criticized froma
number of angles The choice of organizational characteristics, while grounded
in academic and practical research, incorporates an element of subjectivity and some have greater relevance to certain types of companies and industries than others Forexample, an organization selling expertise may attach greater weight
to more informal network structures than an organization selling manufactured products This is not to say that such structures are not important, but the relative weightings are different This highlights the limitation of using a dichotomy, desirable and essential, in the OCM This is currently being addressed by further research in a number of companies that, itis envisaged, will assist in devising a graded scale to demonstrate the relative importance of the various organizational characteristics This will also impact on the overall assessment of the criteria on which knowledge-centricity is based A degree of refinement is anticipated in this respect, but this fits conveniently with the Knowledge journey, since if an organization is not kKnowledge-centric, at which
of the other evolutionary four stages, described earlier in this chapter, 1s an organization at? Anexpanded OCM will greatly assist in this assessment The issue of knowledge-centricity, and indeed knowledge management, is essentially the domain of large organizations, with relatively little written about small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [s the OCM applicable in this context?
There are clearly certain differences between the two types of organizations
McAdam and Reid (2001) argue that the SME sector tends to be less
advanced, with a mechanistic approach to knowledge anda lack ofinvestment
in knowledge management approaches and systems Purthermore, as Sparrow
(1999) and Stonehouse and Pemberton (1999) note:
* The misalignment of capability with market competitors can have amore rapid and drastic impact on SMEs in comparison with larger organiza- tions
* The knowledge development and competitive positioning process within SMEs is more likely to have strategic importance and affect an entire business
* Culture is more easily managedin SMEs and represents a more realistic means of capitalizing on competitive advantage and facilitating knowledge transfer
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 3The Organizational Characteristics of Knowledge-Centricity 117
, Resources (expertise, finance, know-how, etc.) for KM initiatives in
SMEs may be restricted
Early analysis of research conducted by the authors based on the responses to
a survey distributed to over 500 SMEs in 2003 has highlighted a number of pertinent issues including:
# Weak cross-team communications
* Lack of formal information/knowledge repositories evident in most orga- nizations surveyed
* Lack offormal systems for environmental scanning, analysis and organt- zational communications in a majority of organizations surveyed
* Weak information/knowledge retrieval processes and links with product/ service offerings in over half of the organization surveyed
* Vital knowledge is mnmaccessible and not integrated into the work-flow in half the organizations surveyed
* Intellectual (intangible) assets not managed/measured or valued in major- ity of organizations surveyed
There are clearly some links with the issues highlighted here and the organiza- tional characteristics presented in the OCM Anexact mapping of the issues relevant to large companies is probably not entirely realistic, but it may be possible to devise aclosely related variation of the OCM relevant to SMEs One final consideration ts the validity of applying such a matrix across global
boundaries For example, much has been written about the differences in
perspectives of knowledge management in Western and Eastern approaches over the last few years Broadly speaking, the former tends to have historically taken a technology-oriented view, but the socio-technical aspects espoused by writers such as Nonaka et al (2000) are now assuming greater prominence in the knowledge management area Indeed, this is reflected in the OCM presented in this chapter However, the relative weightings of these character- istics may not adequately explain, or account for, fundamental differences in
organizational practices, structures and management For example, in certain
Eastern cultures there 1s a less individualistic culture compared with their Western counterparts, as well as differing attitudes towards accepting author- ity Clearly, the broad characteristics of the OCM are as relevant for judging Copyright © 2004, Idea Group « = Inc Copying «“ or distributing m print or electronic forms without written =
permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 4118 Pembperton & Stonehouse
Knowledge-centricity in Eastern companies as those in the West, but national cultural differences, forexample, are not explicitly accounted for and other nuances may also be a force at play
Conclusion
The use of an organizational characteristics matrix is a succinct way of assessing the extent to which an organization can be viewed as knowledge-centric, aterm embracing not fust knowledge management, but describing all aspects of an organization's knowledge capabilities
It should aiso be noted that knowledge-centricity is not necessarily retained
over time and, for this reason, the application of the OCM is not a one-off
activity [tis conceivable that an organization that fails to keep abreast of business and management developments, as well as the activities of those organizations competing in the same or similar marketplace, may potentially loseits knowledge-centricity status Equally, an organization thatis not judged
as knowledge-centric using the OCM at a particular point in time may subsequently acquire such status when applying the OCM atalaterdate A periodic application of the OCM 1s therefore essential to reflect the changing nature of knowledge creation and dissemination within modern organizations Inessence, aknowledge-centric organization utilizes and exploits its know!l- edge assets in a variety of ways to enhance organizational and individual performance Thisis, by its very nature, adynamic process and reflects the shifting internal and external business environment in which an organization operates, and the notion of continuous learning is an integral feature of innovative organizations that are typically viewed as knowledge-centric The
characteristics comprising the OCM are vital elements of such an organization,
the matrix devised by examination of anumber of organizational features In this first iteration, the OCM is a template for the assessment of knowledge- centricity, but further development is necessary torefine the matrix in line with the imitations and issues identified above This is ongoing, and while the OCM will not be appropriate for all organizations, industries or countries, its application is useful as an internal assessment mechanism, and externally, asa means of benchmarking itself with other competing organizations
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 5The Organizational Characteristics of Knowledge-Centricity 1719
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mark Francis for his collaboration in this research and his employer, Black and Decker, for allowing the work to be undertaken and reported We would also like to thank Will Kolosz for the design and execution of the fieldwork relating to the SME survey
References
Ardichvils, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T (2003) Motivation and barriers to
participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice Jour- nal of Knowledge Management, 7(1}, 64-77
Bhatt, G.D (2000) Information dynamics, learning and knowledge creation in organizations The Learning Organization, /(2), 89-98
Birkinshaw, J (2001) Why is knowledge management so difficult? Business
Griego, O.V., Geroy, G.D., & Wright, P.C (2000) Predictors of learning
organizations: A human resource development practitioner's perspective The Learning Organization, 7(1}, 5-12
Hall, R., & Andriani, P (2002, February) Managing knowledge for innova-
tion Long Range Planning, 35(1), 29-48
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T 2001) What’s your strategy for managing knowledge In J.W Cortada & J.A Woods (Eds.}, The knowledge management yearbook 2000-2001 Boston: Butterworth
Heinemann
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group PY = Inc Copying «“ or distributing m print or electronic forms without written =
permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 6120 Pempberion & Stonehouse
Horne, N (199%) Putting information assets on the board agenda Long Range Planning, 31(1), 10-17
Kippenberger, T (1998) Sharing knowledge at BP The Antidote, 3(1}, 38-
40
KPMG (1997) The knowledge journey: A business guide to knowledge systems Retrieved July 7, 2003, from hitp-/Avww.it-consultancy.com/ extern/pdf/journey.pdf
KPMG (2000) Knowledge management research report 2000 Retrieved July 7, 2003, from www.kpmg.nl/Docs/Knowledge_Advisory_Services/ Liebowitz, J, & Suen, Y (2000) Developing knowledge management metrics for measuring intellectual capital Journal of Intellectual Capital, iC), 54-67
Little, S., Quintas, P., & Ray, T (2002) Managing knowledge: An essential
reader, London: Sage
Mayo, A (2000) The role of employee development in the growth of
intellectual capital Personnel Review, 29(4), 521-4533
McAdam, R., & McCreedy, 8S (1999) A critical review of knowledge
management models The Learning Organization, 6(3), 91-100 McAdam, R., & Reid, R (2001) SME and large organization perceptions of knowledge management: Comparisons and contrasts Journal of Knowl- edge Management, 5(3), 231-241
McCampbell, A., Clare, L., & Gitters,S (1999) Knowledge management:
The new challenge for the 21" Century Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, 3(3), 172-179
McDermott, R., & O'Dell, C 2001) Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing
knowledge /ournal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H., & Bukh, P (2001) Valuing the future: Intellectual
capital supplements at Skandia Accounting, Auditing and Account-
ability fournal, 14(4), 399-422
Murray, P., & Myers, A (1998) Survey of KM practice in Europe fnforma- tion Strategy London: The Economist
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N (2000) SECT, Ba and leadership: A
unified model of dynamic knowledge creation Long Range Planning, 33), 5-34
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 7The Organizational Characteristics of Knowledge-Centricity 124
O'Dell, C., Wig, K., & Odem, P (1999) Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledge management strategies Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 6(3}, 202-211,
Pemberton, J., & Stonehouse, G 2000) Organizational learning and knowl-
edge assets - An essential partnership The Learning Organization, 7(4), 184-193
Pemberton, J., & Stonehouse, G (2002) The importance of individual knowledge in developing the knowledge-centric organization In E Coakes, D Willis & S Clarke (Eds}, Knowledge management in the socio-technical world: The graffiti continues London: Springer
Pemberton, J., Stonehouse, G., & Francis, M (2002) Black and Decker —
towards a knowledge-centric organization Knowledge and Process
Management, 9(3), 178-189
Pemberton, J., Stonehouse, G., & Yarrow, D (2001) Benchmarking and the
role of organizational learning in developing competitive advantage
Knowledge and Process Management, 5(2), 123-135
Petrash, G (1996, August) Dow’s journey toa knowledge value management culture European Management Journal, 14(4), 365-373
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G (1990) The core competence of an organization
Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-93
Senge, P (1990) The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organisation New York: Doubleday
Skyrme, D (1999) Knowledge networking: Creating the collaborative enterprise, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann
Sparrow, J (1999) Supporting knowledge management in small and
medium sized enterprises Retrieved July 7, 2003, from University of the
West of England’s Knowledge Management Centre Website, http:// kinc.ths.uce.ac.uk/kmcpublications.htm
Stonehouse, G., Pemberton, J., & Barber, C (2001) The role of knowledge
facilitators and inhibitors: Lessons from airline reservations systems Long
Range Planning, 34(2), 115-138
Stonehouse, G.H., & Pemberton, J.D (1999) Learning and knowledge
management tn the intelligent organization Participation & Empower-
ment; An International fournal, 7(5), 31-144
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copyme or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 8122 Pemberion & Stonehouse
Teece, D (2000) Strategies for managing knowledge assets: The role of the firm structure and industrial context Long Range Planning, 33(1), 35-54
Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, L., & Abel, M (2001) Making the most of your
company s knowledge: A strategic framework Long Range Planning, 34(4), 421-439,
Vouros, G.A (2003) Technological issues towards knowledge-powered organizations fournal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 114-127
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W.M (2000, January/February) Communities of
practice: The organizational frontier Harvard Business Review, 139-
145
Zack, M (1999) Knowledge and strategy Oxford: Butterworth-Hetnemann
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 10124 Leung
Chapter VII
Albert C.K Leung Lingnan University, Hong Kong
Abstract
in view of the need of using knowledge management (KM) systems for learning and training, this chapter discusses six major design factors of such KM systems based on learning literatures, namely media of representation, multiple perspectives, complexity, user control, online support and navigation aids Their implications toward learning and training effectiveness as well as various strategies and implementation
methods are investigated in four categories: content, motivation, support
and accessibility ft ts believed that by considering the factors involved and their potential impacts on learning in the design of KM systems, the effectiveness of using these systems for learning, training and problem solving will be significantly improved
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 11An Effective Tool for Learning and Training 125
Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) is becoming one of the most significant factors
in determining organizational success (Bowman, 2002), because knowledge has become the key economic resource and the dominant source of compara- tive advantage influencing everything from acompany’s strategy toits products, from its processes to the very way the firmis organized (Ruggles, 1998) In fact,
KM performs a range of functions for personal growth and organizational effectiveness, namely, gathering knowledge, organizing knowledge, distribut- ing knowledge, and converting knowledge into action Therefore,a KMsystem should have the capability to support knowledge acquisition, decision making, communication, reference material searching, and human resource develop- ment such as training (Plass & Salisbury, 2002)
While most businesses appreciate the strategic value of knowledge and the
need to manage their knowledge assets, many of them seem unable to derive
real benefits from their efforts (Murray, 2002) Fahey and Prusak (1998)
summarized 11 problem areas with KM in organizations, namely working definition of knowledge, knowledge stock instead of knowledge flow, roles of individuals, creating shared context, role of tacit knowledge, knowledge of uses, thinking and reasoning, future knowledge, experimentation, technology- human interface and measures of knowledge In another study (Hunter et al., 2002), social and cultural issues are found to be potential inhibitors for KM practices Furthermore, lack of senior management understanding and support can also substantially reduce the gain of KM deployment (Horwitch &
Armacost, 2002) As such, measures and recommendations are suggested in various literatures to make KM more effective (e.g., Bowman, 2002; Horwitch, 2002; Hunter et al., 2002; Murray, 2002) Various architectures for KM
development were also proposed (e.g., Bollouqu et al., 2002; Galup et al.,
2002; Nemati et al., 2002; Plass & Salisbury, 2002)
Since a KM system supposedly collects all essential organizational knowledge,
ithas been used as avery effective tool for human resources development, such
as training of new and existing staff (Carlile, 2002) Such practices are different from traditional classroom traming, since they are mainly technology-based and trainee-centered In this regard, the design of a KM system has to take consideration of other factors besides the above-mentioned factors such as knowledge presentation, system design and online support Particularly, from the learning point of view, aK M system has to be designed to support learners’ exploration, thinking and reasoning, and problem solving Therefore, learning Copyright © 2004, Idea Group PY = Inc Copying «“ or distributing m print or electronic forms without written =
permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.
Trang 12Itis therefore the objective of this research to explore building KM systems in consideration of fundamental learning theories, which would enhance the effectiveness of learning/training by using these systems Instead of on those technological or architectural issues about KM development, this approach is proposed based on the issues that would have potential impact on learning/
training effectiveness, namely media of representation, complexity, multiple
perspective, user control, online support and navigation aids [tis expected that the proposed approach wouid enhance the effectiveness of using KM systems for training as well as for other purposes such as decision support and Knowledge searching, and provide invaluable insight toward KM development and deployment In the following sections, learning theory development is first introduced Thereafter, the theoretical background of the mentioned six issues
as well as their implications to the design and implementation of KM systems
in terms of their major training capabilities, namely contents, motivation, support and accessibility, are presented Discussions and conclusions are given
at the end of this chapter
Learning Theory Development and
issues
Current research in learning has shifted from passive human memory to active strategies for learning: what it means to learn, the contents that learners are to acquire, and the contextin which they are to acquire it (Glaser & Bassok, 1989; Greeno, 1989) There are increasing concerns about helping learners to learn
to think more effectively, and to help them develop effective problem solving, reasoning and learning skills, which have brought increasing demands for more subtle methods torender overt the human thought processes (Brown, Camptone
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc is prohibited.