Employing trust in organizing communities of practice for knoweldge management

The notion of communities of practice CoPs, groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise provides the conceptual structure by which

EMPLOYING TRUST IN ORGANIZING COMMUNITIES

OF PRACTICE FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

ANAND MOHAN RAMCHAND

(B.Sc(Hons), NUS)

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

2004

Acknowledgements

This experience would not have been quite so exhilarating without the guidance and direction

of my supervisor, Dr Pan Shan Ling, to whom I owe innumerable thanks Your ability to motivate, inspire, encourage and comfort has made the difficult journey through demanding times manageable The opportunities I have received, competencies I have acquired and interests I have developed in our time together would not have come to fruition without you Thank you for your leadership, counsel and friendship

List of Figures / Tables

1 The Conventional vs Iconoclastic Hierarchy of Knowledge 11

4 A Holistic Look at the Service Provision Process 64

7 The Intricate Web of Individuals, Processes and Information 74

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Research Objectives ………… ….……… 3

1.2 Findings ………….……… 4

1.3 Organization of Subsequent Chapters ………….……… 5

2 Literature Review 7 2.1 Toward the Management of Organizational Knowledge …… 7

2.1.1 The Modern Organization and its Need to Manage Knowledge …… 7

2.1.2 How this Review is Organized .……… 9

2.2 Understanding the Knowledge Construct ……… 10

2.2.1 The Distinction Between Knowledge and Information ….….……… 10

2.2.2 The Dichotomy of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge ….….……… 13

2.2.3 Typologies of Knowledge at the Organization Level ….……… 16

2.2.4 Knowledge and Action – Understanding Knowing ….…….……… 18

2.2.5 Summary ……… 20

2.3 Understanding Knowledge in an Organizational Context ……… 20

2.3.1 The Cognitive Approach – Knowledge In Individuals ……… 22

2.3.2 The Knowledge-Based View – Knowledge as an Organizational Asset …… 23

2.3.3 The Situated Approach – Knowledge in Practice and Communities ……… 25

2.3.4 The Techno-Science Approach ……… 29

2.3.5 The Role of Information Systems in Managing Knowledge ……… 31

2.3.5.1 Knowledge Creation ……… 31

2.3.5.2 Knowledge Storage ……… 33

2.3.5.3 Knowledge Sharing and Transfer ……… 33

2.3.5.4 Knowledge Application through Integration ……… 35

2.3.6 Summary ……… 37

2.4 Communities of Practice as a Strategic Knowledge Resource ……… 38

2.4.1 The Role Of Trust ……… 41

2.4.1.1 The Trust Construct ……… 43

2.4.1.2 Trust as an Organizing Principle ……… 45

2.5 Summary ……… 48

3 Research Methodology 49

3.1 Research and its Philosophical Assumptions …… ….……… 49

3.1.1 Choosing an Appropriate Method ……….……… 51

3.2 The Research Methodology ……… ….……… 53

3.2.1 The Research Model ……… 54

3.2.2 The Data Collection ……… 56

3.2.3 Data Analysis ……… 58

4 Case Description 60 4.1 Company Background ……… 60

4.1.1 Organizational Structure ……… 61

4.1.2 Moving from Government to Commercial Services ……….……… 63

4.1.3 The General Process for Business ……… 63

4.2 An Overview of Knowledge Management in NCS ……… 65

4.3 Understanding the Intricate Relationships ……… 69

4.4 Knowledge Xpress – The Development of an Organizational KMS ……… 72

4.4.1 Rolling Out and Refining Knowledge Xpress ……… 73

4.5 Toward A Socio-Technical Approach ……… 79

4.5.1 The Communities of Practice ……… 80

4.5.2 Extending the Concept to a Second Community ……… 83

4.6 Ensuring Sustainability ……… 88

5 Analysis and Findings 90 5.1 Structuring COPs with Trust ……… 91

5.1.1 Transferability of Trust and its Generative Capacity ……… 91

5.1.2 Delayed Reciprocity ……… 95

5.1.3 Role Specialization ……… 97

5.2 Mobilizing Trust For Effective Knowledge Sharing and the Role of IS/IT … 99

5.2.1 Disclosing and Screening Knowledge ……… 99

5.2.2 Identity and Commitment ………… ……… 101

5.2.3 Judgement and Opportunistic Behaviour … ……… 103

5.3 Summary ……… … 105

6 Conclusion 108

6.1 Summary of Findings ……… 108

6.2 Contribution and Implications ……… 110

6.3 Future Research ……… 112

6.4 Concluding Remarks ……… 113

The systematic and intentional management of organizational knowledge has increasingly become a strategic action in firms for meeting the demands of today’s increasingly complex business environments What differentiates the management of organizational knowledge from other organizational actions is its enduring ability to provide inimitable sustainable competitive advantage Initial approaches to knowledge management (KM) were technically-driven attempts to harness the storage and computational abilities of technology to capture and disseminate the various complex forms of organizational knowledge Subsequently, however, the notion of socially-constructed knowledge penetrated organizational efforts, and the role of social and cultural aspects were considered as critical factors to KM’s success

KM has now reached a third juncture in its development in organizations The dynamic ability

of people to understand and use knowledge in their actions in work-related contexts

(‘knowing’) has called for more practice-oriented approaches The notion of communities of practice (CoPs, groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion

for a joint enterprise) provides the conceptual structure by which organizations can leverage

on the interactions between individuals to manage tacit and explicit knowledge that can effectively be used to enhance work practices and contribute towards competitive advantage

However, epitomized by their informality, lack of organizational boundaries, fluctuating membership and constant evolution, CoPs cannot be managed by recipe For organizations

to adopt CoPs as a mechanism for knowledge sharing and a strategic communal resource, the richness and frequency of interactions between individuals needs to be nurtured and developed in enduring relationships

Underlying such relationships is the ‘invisible hand’ of trust (a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another) In today’s increasingly tumultuous knowledge-intensive work environments, the interdependence among actors has increased significantly An understanding of the effects of trust can therefore shed light into the management of CoPs, and how to structure and mobilize them for competitive advantage

In a case study of the KM initiatives at NCS, a Singapore-based systems integrator, the effect

of trust on CoPs was studied As an organizing principle, trust can be used to structure enduring and stable interactions between participants, resulting in rich knowledge exchange The transferability and generative capacity of trust increases the connectedness of individuals and the multiplexity of their relationships Trust transfer can be supported through agenda, norms, culture, shared values and management support Generative capacity can be increased by providing supporting communication structures and activities outside the CoPs

agenda The sustainability of the CoP can be developed through the redundancy of roles such that expertise and discrimination does not unevenly distribute knowledge, power and status within the community

The CoP can be mobilized for strategic advantage by permitting easy disclosure and access

to information about community members, assisting in developing relation-based trust, and suspending judgements in relationships IS/IT play important strategic roles in this endeavor

1 INTRODUCTION

The significant and accelerated adoption of advanced communications and information technologies by commercial organizations over the last ten years has altered the way business is conducted today Paradigm-shifting technologies such as the Internet, advanced customer relationship and data management technologies, distributed networking and interactive capabilities have provided organizations with numerous avenues with which to reach customers, locate and enter new markets, wage ‘wars’ against competitors, create strategic partnerships and operate globally with greater competence Information technologies have completely revolutionized all aspects of the business environment, altering both buyers and sellers capabilities, and providing opportunities to strategically leverage on technology for organizational growth However, as firms rush to adopt new information management technologies in the pursuit of lowering costs, streamlining efficiency and raising effectiveness, the struggle to stay a step ahead of rivals in the increasingly competitive and technologically-fuelled business environment is still a complex endeavor for any organization The ability to leverage on technology to process data and manage information quickly, and dynamically predict and react to changes in operating environments no longer provides firms with strategic advantages As a result, firms have turned their focus both outwardly, to their partners, supply chains and value webs, and inwardly, to their micro environments, to seek out resources of strategic advantage

Among the many strategic concepts occupying the tumultuous air of organizational action, the

notion of “knowledge management” (KM) sticks out clearly – a relatively recent strategic

paradigm aimed at utilizing the knowledge of the firm and its constituents for effective competitive action What differentiates the KM concept from other organizational strategies, however, is its enduring ability to provide sustained strategic advantage, the difficulty in competitors imitating its success, the virtual impossibility in cloning the value it generates in other firms, and its pervasiveness in radically affecting the various social, technological and practice elements of the organization’s environment - making it a valuable endeavor for strategic competition and organizational growth Scholars and practitioners alike have attempted to detail the importance of managing organizational knowledge for strategic

advantage in today’s knowledge economy (for example, Prahalad and Hamel 1990, Drucker

1988, Stewart 1997, Leonard-Barton 1995, Bell 1999) This has led to a plethora of prescriptions, actions and mechanisms by which organizations have attempted, albeit many unsuccessfully, to increase competitiveness through the manipulation and control of knowledge within their organization and business environments While the approaches are varied, the value of knowledge as a key organizational asset and KM as an organizational action is ubiquitously recognized, particularly in many of today’s knowledge-intensive industries Initial approaches to KM were technically-driven attempts to harness the storage and computational abilities of technology to capture and disseminate the various complex forms of organizational knowledge However, the dynamic ability of people to understand and use knowledge in their actions in work-related contexts (‘knowing’) called for more social- and practice-oriented approaches, in which a firm’s individuals participate in the creation, utilizing and communication of knowledge, which is enabled but not driven by technology The notion

of communities of practice (CoPs) provides the conceptual structure by which organizations

can leverage on the interactions between individuals and their work relationships to manage knowledge that can effectively be used to enhance work practices and therefore contribute towards competitive advantage Such communities are groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise (Wenger and Snyder 2000) and can be used to effectively drive strategy, generate new lines of business, solve problems, spread best practices, and create knowledge

The foundation for the success of such CoPs is the strength of relationships formed between its participants and the depth of exchanges of knowledge they engage in However, intra- and inter-organizational relationships have undergone significant changes as business environments have changed - the prevalent and widespread adoption of technologies has revamped the interconnectedness of organizations and accelerated environmental changes, requiring managers to make decisions and organizations to compete faster and sometimes without comprehensive detail In such an environment, plagued with change, uncertainty, ambiguity, risk, and a lack of complete information as the only constants faced by managers, organizational members are now forced to rely on one another’s competence when

completing organizational tasks As a result, interdependence between individuals has increased significantly Such interdependence relies on trust – trust in the abilities, competencies and willingness of others to provide value to one another, and increase performance by decreasing the uncertainties inherent in a turbulent operating environment (Iivonen 2004)

The ability of trust to significantly affect relationships thus makes it a crucial component in the social aspect of managing organizational knowledge, particularly in CoPs Trust relates to knowledge management and intellectual capital through the ideas of social capital (Huotari and Iivonen 2004) – as human interactions and relationships (i.e social relations) provide the ability for networked structures and activities to be utilized in organizations, trust must develop within these networks for their successful deployment because these relationships form the foundation for collective action (Huotari and Iivonen 2004, von Krogh 2002), such as the exchange of resources, information and knowledge As entities in networked activities develop trust for one another, they are better able to cope with the increasing uncertainties in dynamic work environments such as those found in knowledge-intensive work CoPs are an example of such networked structures in knowledge management initiatives in organizations However, the interplay of trust within CoPs and its participants has not been understood nor examined, that is, the effects of trust have not been investigated in the context of CoPs and

KM Such an examination of the dynamics of trust within relationships in a CoP would therefore shed light on how trust can be developed within the CoPs, and how it affects the ability of the CoP to provide competitive advantage to the organization Furthermore, an in-depth understanding of the role of trust in CoPs would therefore shed some light on how CoPs can be created, structured and employed to deal with uncertainties in organizational operating environments

1.1 Research Objectives

The objective of this study is thus to understand how and why trust affects the engagement of individuals and, consequently, the formation of enduring, knowledge-exchanging

relationships, in the practice-oriented context of the CoP By understanding the dynamics and interaction of trust among the participants in a CoP, an appreciation of the complexities involved in deploying such an initiative for effective knowledge management can be developed, and insights as to how CoPs can be more effectively used to manage organizational knowledge can be discovered Such in-depth comprehension can reveal how CoPs can be created and cultivated by maximizing the development of trust, and the activities which can be encouraged to engage its participants in trust-building, trust-maintenance and knowledge-exchange, thus enabling the communities of practice to provide sustainable competitive advantage to organizations by allowing practice-based relationships to contend with the complexities of turbulent and ambiguous operating environments Being networked structures, information systems and technologies can play a vital role in enabling such community structures and supporting activities that foster the requisite level of interpersonal trust

A review of literature reveals that the concept of trust in an organization has been developed theoretically but has yet to provide sufficient empirical support to integrate the numerous fragments of trust into a coherent set of propositions for organizational research The literature on communities of practice in KM has demonstrated their ability to act as strategic organizational resources, capable of providing sustained competitive advantage through knowledge-based activities, and has provided many insights However, the effect of trust in the relationships between CoP participants has not been investigated Consequentially, such

a study would not only demonstrate the ability of trust in organizations to enable or hinder knowledge management activities, but would also provide much-needed empirical support to further the conceptualization of trust in organizational literature

1.2 Findings

To achieve these objectives, a case study was conducted with a large Singaporean systems integrator which had embarked on a socio-practice approach to knowledge management after initial attempts at traditional technical approaches were ineffective in providing the adequate

support for KM activities An intricate understanding of the uncertainty, risk and ambiguity in the knowledge-intensive work of its employees provided an ideal opportunity to study the effects of trust in enhancing a CoP’s ability to reduce operating uncertainties By thoroughly understanding the nature of this knowledge work, the true threat of uncertainties and risks to the firm is revealed, particularly in the context of the ambiguous and autonomous nature of the knowledge worker’s practices Subsequently, in an attempt to comprehend the complex environment of and interactions within the community, a recent conceptual framework proposed by McEvily et al (2003a) was employed to explain the effects of trust between individuals in the CoPs, and its implications on structuring and mobilizing the CoPs by using trust as an organizing principle

These findings provide (i) an in-depth understand of trust interactions within communities of practice, (ii) insights into how communities of practice can be created, managed and used for sustainable competitive advantage in uncertain environments, and why they are successful, (iii) empirical support to recent attempts to form coherent organizational frameworks on trust

1.3 Organization of Subsequent Chapters

Chapter 2 introduces this study by reviewing the current literature on knowledge and knowledge management strategies adopted by organizations, as well as the role of information systems in enabling these strategies The role of communities of practice in providing sustainable competitive advantage is discussed further here, coupled with elaborations on the contemporary understanding of trust and how it affects relationships and may be used as an organizing principle to counter the effects of uncertainty and interdependence in work environments Chapter 3 proceeds to describes why the case study methodology was adopted for this study, as well as how it was conducted to understand the high levels of uncertainty in the work-related actions of the employees involved, the interactions within the communities, and the development of trust between participants as they engaged in shared activities Chapter 4 extensively describes the organization’s journey

in knowledge management, the structure, management and role of its

communities-of-practice efforts, and the ambiguous, autonomous and complex nature of the systems integration industry By examining the communities of practice in the organization, Chapter 5 analyzes how trust interacts within the communities of practice, providing implications on the structuring and mobilizing of the communities by using trust as an organizing principle Together with the support of information technology, concepts in trust can be utilized to create, manage and effectively use these communities as sustainable organizational resources for strategic advantage Lastly, Chapter 6 summarizes the findings of this study, together with implications for future research to further extend the understanding of trust and communities of practice in knowledge management

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 T OWARD THE M ANAGEMENT OF O RGANIZATIONAL K NOWLEDGE

The management of knowledge is a modern concept in the history and development of commercial organizations, yet has emerged through the evolution of organizations over time, and is not a passing fad or simply a contemporary management catchphrase Organizations, fundamentally, use human and social resources, interactions and inventions to solve problems and exploit opportunities presented to them in their operating environments Over time, as the environmental conditions vary and the problems change, organizations adapt their use of these resources with suitable strategies to meet these demands Such is the case with knowledge management (KM) – both scholarly and industry studies provide conceptual grounding and practical evidence supporting the management of knowledge for sustained organizational growth In attempting to understand why, an examination of the precursors that led to this concept of managing knowledge contribute to an understanding of the significance

of this concept and its importance to modern management thought and strategy development

2.1.1 The Modern Organization and Its Need to Manage Knowledge

From the general merchant practices of the late-18th century to the post-WWII industrial-age organizations of the mid-20th century, business enterprises have been constantly inundated with waves of changes in their economic, social and technological environments These undulating movements in the environmental landscape, over time, significantly increased business activity, opened new markets, introduced new competitors and led to the need for firms to constantly monitor and alter their operations to compete using the technological opportunities available in their time As technological developments, economic expansion and increasing market demand called for organizations to improve the efficiencies of diversification, mass production and distribution channels, the path for big business and 20thcentury capitalism was laid, and with it, the need for appropriate management theory to

highlight the planning and control of resources involved Organizational strategies such as the decentralization of decision-making and flattening of organizational structures were used to deal with the increasingly complex and dynamically changing environment As businesses churned out and utilized more and more data in this pursuit, the efficient processing and effective exploitation of information developed into an organizational priority, leading to an information and decision-making school of thought that focused on the design of information systems and information-processing models to manage information flow in constantly changing business environments Technology played a key role in enabling organizations to fundamentally shift from data-processing entities into information-based organizations (Drucker 1988) Various studies in management theory conducted until the late 1980s suggested organizational success would be determined by the ability of organizations to harness information to dynamically and efficiently meet resource constraints through various means, including streamlining operations and processes, effectively using technology, improving product quality and changing management structures

Subsequently, however, scholars noted the driving force of organizational change and success in the ‘90s would be based on the ability of organizations to cultivate their core competencies (Prahalad & Hamel 1990) Focus on such core value-creating or differentiating activities would increase an organization’s competitive advantage, but would require specialization and its requisite expertise Skills, knowledge, innovation and creativity have thus become key resources to organizations and the employees able to harness these resources have increasingly become the most valuable capital to the organization These

workers deal with the increasing complexity in a constantly changing based economy, and the management of that expertise affords the knowledge-based

knowledge-organization the ability to meet customers’ needs, through the value-adding and creating activities of these highly skilled experts, and thus lead to larger profits (Reich 1991) This management of expertise, as opposed to the management of the experts, aims to get the most out of an organization’s intellectual capital, or knowledge This strategic objective gives

wealth-“birth” to knowledge management – how organizations manage their intellectual base, and

leverage on it, to create a sustainable competitive advantage - which will be a driving force for organizational change

2.1.2 How This Review Is Organized

While the above introduction briefly describes the emergence and importance of managing organizational knowledge from a strategic perspective, the foundation for studying knowledge comes from a wider, more fragmented, constellation of literature, deeply rooted in philosophy and sociology (Grandori and Kogut 2002), psychology, economics, and grounded further in disciplines such as cognitive studies, the management of information systems and technology, management science and organizational behavior, to name a few The dialectical interactions between these various disciplines accounts for the numerous perspectives and theoretical groundings behind the diverse and fragmented definitions, taxonomies and prescriptions put forward in knowledge management studies today Recent literature has frequently called for and attempted the consolidation of these diverse perspectives into comprehensive knowledge management frameworks and theories As this review develops, it will reveal how, through this contemporary literature, the management of knowledge, from the individual level, has far-reaching implications on the organization, and raises questions with regard to the fundamental characteristics of the firm, including its management, structure, behavior, culture, boundaries, processes, activities and coordination, as the firm is viewed as

a distributed knowledge system (Tsoukas 1996) In understanding knowledge management, it

is imperative to consider these various contemporary schools of thought, which lead us to our interpretation of knowledge today, and identify the issues in its management A clear understanding of this (section 2.2) is essential before we can understand the relationship between an individual’s knowledge and the management of organizational knowledge, and consider the various perspectives of managing knowledge in organizations (section 2.3)

1

An important distinction is made between competitive advantage and sustainable competitive advantage Barney

(1991) clarifies that both forms involve the utilization of a “value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitor” (p 102), however a sustainable advantage is only achieved when the other firms are unable to and have ceased efforts to duplicate the advantages of this strategy As this review develops, it will synthesize concepts that demonstrate how organizations can achieve such an advantage

Finally, an understanding of the importance and dynamics of trust and control mechanisms within the organizational context (Section 2.4) sheds insights into its effects on knowledge-related activities

2.2 U NDERSTANDING THE K NOWLEDGE C ONSTRUCT

In attempting to understand knowledge management, a useful starting point is considering the various definitions (Section 2.2.1) and characteristics of knowledge (Sections 2.2.2) available

in literature that constitute our interpretation of the knowledge construct today These characteristics have developed the types of knowledge deliberated on in research and by organizations (Section 2.2.3) Stemming from diverse theoretical traditions, contemporary studies present this on a variety of levels – focusing on the knowledge of individuals, the collective knowledge of socially-enacted groups, and knowledge on an organizational level These various modes of knowledge, their characteristics and implications on the individuals in

an organization are presented here, and are prevalent throughout the discussion of managing knowledge in organizations The notion of how an individual’s knowledge influences, and is influenced by, action and practice in a situated context provides a crucial stepping stone to understanding its context in the organization, and is discussed in Section 2.2.4

2.2.1 The Distinction between Knowledge and Information

As literature prescribes, a fundamental step in understanding and leveraging knowledge is differentiating it from information Data has been defined as raw numbers and fact, “a set of discrete, objective facts about events” (Davenport & Prusak 1998, p.2), an “ordered sequence

of given items” (Tsoukas & Vladimirou 2001, p.976), for example structured records of transactions Characterized by its lack of relevance, purpose and context, data is stock-piled

to be converted into useful organizational information Davenport & Prusak (1998) suggest that this is done through several means - categorizing, contextualizing, calculating, correcting

and condensing - to provide value, meaning and purpose to the data With this contextual meaning, data becomes information, “the flow of messages or meaning” (Nonaka 1994, p.15),

a “context-based arrangement of items whereby relations between them are shown” (Tsoukas

& Vladimirou 2001)

Knowledge, on the other hand, distinguishes itself from information with the added element of human cognition and reasoning in providing the context Information becomes knowledge,

“the judgement of the significance of events and items… from a particular context” (Tsoukas

& Vladimirou 2001), when it is “anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder” (Nonaka 1994, p.15) Davenport & Prusak (1998) consider it as “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” The subtle difference stems from the state of “mind of individuals… [Knowledge] is personalized information related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations and judgements” (Alavi & Leidner 2001, p.109) Nonaka (1994) regards the quest for knowledge as “a dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs as part of an aspiration for the ‘truth’”

This process of judging and evaluating information occurs in the minds of individuals, but is

reflected in their actions and interactions In light of new information, individuals arrange…re-design” (Bell 1999, p xiv) what they previously held true into categories in their

“re-order…re-minds However, the criteria for such judgement lie in a domain of action or practice (Tsoukas

data knowledge

knowledge data

Figure 1: The Conventional vs Iconoclastic Hierarchy of Knowledge

& Valdimirou 2001), in which these categories are formed and constantly redefined, and where they possess their meanings It is only through frequent action and interaction within this domain or context that individuals can learn to effectively use the categories to classify new information Tsoukas and Valdimirou paraphrase these various insights and further define knowledge as “the individual ability to draw distinctions within a collective domain of action, based on an appreciation of context or theory, or both” (p 979) When individuals draw upon the context and generalizations set forth collectively by the members of their organizations, the ability to make distinctions becomes useful knowledge to the organization

Based on the above discussion, literature evidently prescribes to a hierarchy from data to information to knowledge (see Figure 1), each varying along some characteristics such as context, interpretation or usefulness In this hierarchy, data is the fundamental resource from which knowledge is created Recent literature asserts, however, that this view cannot withstand rigorous evaluation (Alavi & Leidner 2001) Tuomi (2000) proposes that the hierarchy should be reversed – data can emerge only when there is knowledge and information This iconoclastic argument is supported by Alavi and Leidner (2001), who bring

to light that for information to be “personalized” (thus becoming knowledge), in must be sieved through the cognitive ‘filter’ of an individual’s existing knowledge

This notion that information requires knowledge to become new knowledge implies that knowledge must exist before information Tuomi (2000) proposes that information can be viewed as knowledge which has been articulated, through linguistic and conceptual contexts, into a more conventional form such as verbal or textual information Data, in turn, is created

by restructuring information into a fixed representation and interpretation that can be processed easily Such a view of knowledge, information and data is held in this paper, and has deep implications on how organizations should approach the management of knowledge,

as expounded in subsequent sections

2.2.2 The Dichotomy of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge

In his studies relating to validity of human perception in positivist scientific research, Michael Polanyi contributes one of the most widely-cited theoretical constructs in the field of

knowledge at an individual’s level – his epistemological concept of tacit knowledge (Polanyi

1962) Using this construct, he presents the notion that knowledge, to a large extent, is personal to the people that hold it, and resides in their subconscious This dimension of knowledge refers to the knowledge embedded within the human brain and body – knowledge that people commonly have difficulty expressing - such as the actions involved in the ability to ride a bicycle, or in detailing how individuals are able to recognize a face Spender (1996) stresses that tacit knowledge is not impossible to articulate or codify - it is possible to

communicate what we know, but highly difficult to express how we know it (Swart & Pye

2002) Sanchez (1997) iterates this notion, explaining that the term ‘tacit knowledge’ brings up

an epistemologically discrepancy because its interpretation consists of knowledge that is

“unarticulated” but may be expressed with difficulty through effort, and also “knowledge that is not capable of being articulated” (p 165) A more appropriate term for the former would be

‘implicit’ knowledge, while the latter would be truly ‘tacit’ knowledge However, in either case, the all-encompassing expression ‘tacit knowledge’ is commonly used, possibly because it is unlikely to be articulated (Leonard & Sensiper 1998), either due to the inherent difficulty involved in the task or the lack of incentive to so

Tacit knowledge is characterized by its deep roots in an individual’s personal beliefs, experience and values (Pan & Scarbrough 1999) Nonaka (1994) notes it is this fundamental level of involvement that renders tacit knowledge difficult to formalize and communicate The information received by an individual becomes knowledge when the semantic component of that information is enveloped by and interpreted with the beliefs, commitments and value systems of the individual This notion is regarded as the fundamental trigger behind the creation of new knowledge (Nonaka 1994) Spender (1998) argues that personal experience and values form the primary source of learning and an individual’s cognitive capabilities, in turn, make this knowledge

Other characteristics of tacit knowledge include its subjective and experiential nature (Wagner 1987) and its simultaneous (Sutton 2001) and analogue behavior as it is a “continuous activity

of knowing” (Nonaka 1994, p 16) Nonaka furthers this by elaborating on the cognitive element of tacit knowledge by which individuals perceive the world and reality (through mental models, schemata, paradigms and viewpoints) and contrasts it with the its technical element (including specific crafts, skills and know-how) Leonard & Sensiper (1998) describe it as the

“semiconscious and unconscious” (p 113) knowledge that leads to gut-feelings and intuition

Blackler (1995) describes a similar concept - embrained knowledge - as the knowledge that is

dependent on conceptual skills and cognitive abilities

The various interpretations and usage of tacit knowledge in literature are numerous and in some aspects problematic However, as the literature demonstrates and does not refute, the implications of this tacit dimension of knowledge are significant, highlighting the insight that it

is the individuals who are the holders of knowledge within an organization Tacit knowledge is localized within these individuals, and can be difficult to extract Furthermore, this knowledge

is difficult and expensive to transfer within the organization and easily lost when the individual employee takes it with him upon concluding his working stint Thus organizations striving to achieve a strategic advantage from its knowledge must base their efforts on the knowledge of the individual worker Similarly, organizations must be weary of losing such knowledge as employees leave

The diametrical concept to tacit knowledge is explicit knowledge – knowledge that is easily articulated and codified The explicit dimension accounts for documented and communicated knowledge, which can be symbolic or expressed easily, through the use of formal language, mathematical expressions, documentation, manuals, specifications, symbols, objects and other artifacts (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) Such knowledge can be represented in objects such as software, patents, reports and blueprints (Stenmark 2002) Easily shared between individuals, it constitutes the primary means by which organizations traditionally share knowledge among their employees and also with other organizations In contrast to its

counterpart, explicit knowledge is characterized by being objective, rational, sequential, displaced (Sutton 2001) and digital (Nonaka 1994)

Based on Polanyi’s insights, however, explicit knowledge is deeply rooted in and only has meaning through the tacit knowledge that resides in an individual The two form a dichotomy, and yet are complementary to one another The argument stems from the proposition that explicit knowledge, albeit tangible and articulate, may not be immediately and completely comprehended and valued by the intended recipient In such an instance, Stenmark (2002) regards this simply as information and not knowledge For information to be converted to knowledge, it needs to be received, interpreted, and understood within the envelope of the recipient’s value system, beliefs, perceptions and commitment That is, information becomes knowledge when it is placed into the context of an individual’s tacit knowledge, as highlighted

in Tuomi’s (2000) iconoclastic view of the knowledge hierarchy in the previous section

For the transfer of information to occur as intended and to be interpreted as a form of knowledge, both the recipient and contributor should be communicating through the same values, beliefs, assumptions and commitment In short, the knowledge should ideally be transferred through the same envelope of tacit knowledge However, this condition is highly unlikely to occur Stenmark (2002) indicates that groups stemming from similar affiliations (such as organizations or professions) are likely to have more tacit knowledge in common, a concept he highlights (through the work of Tuomi) as ‘communities of thought’ As the context

of these affiliations bring forth their own values, and affect the perceptions, beliefs and assumptions of individuals, a greater level of mutual tacit knowledge would be shared among individuals, and thus promote better knowledge sharing

These issues have direct implications on the organizations that attempt to use knowledge for competitive advantage As the knowledge that resides in the individual affects the proper interpretation of new information, it is in the organization’s interest to facilitate and promote mutual tacit knowledge, through the use of common organizational artifacts such as routines, procedures, hierarchies, technology and rules, known as ‘embedded’ knowledge in Blackler

(1995) The process of achieving such shared understandings has been labeled ‘encultured

knowledge’ (Blackler 1995), and is rooted deeply in socialization within the organization The

facilitation and promotion of open interactions between individuals in the organization has led

to organizational culture becoming an important contributing factor to the success of

knowledge in the organization

However, the discussion so far has tied explicit and tacit knowledge together through the

cognitive process of individuals – knowledge is largely a state of an individual’s mind Explicit

knowledge, while objectified and articulated, deeply stems from and is dependent on tacit

knowledge located in and possessed by individuals These notions form the foundation of the

knowledge construct

2.2.3 Typologies of Knowledge at the Organizational Level

Apart from the dichotomy of tacit and explicit knowledge, literature contains propositions of

other taxonomies of knowledge as well Boisot’s (1995) classification of four types of

knowledge is based on the dimensions of readiness of the knowledge to be transmitted

Common Sense

Personal Knowledge

Public Knowledge

Proprietary KnowledgeCodified

Uncodified

Undiffused Diffused

Figure 2: Boisot’s Taxonomy

(codified) and the ease by which it can be shared (diffusion) This classification is illustrated in Figure 2 Prior to this Boisot identifies a matrix of 4 types of personal knowledge based on its degree of generality (abstract/concrete), and its extent of diffusion (diffused/undiffused) This

typology includes esoteric knowledge (abstract and undiffused, this knowledge is held by

individuals or a group and while possessing potential for social application, it is difficult to

share), scientific knowledge (abstract and diffused, such as scientific laws), topical knowledge

(concrete and diffused, this includes knowledge of current events, and is based in a particular

context) and local knowledge (concrete and undiffused, this knowledge is based on individual

experience and is difficult to share)

Noting that this typology does not distinguish between the ability to code the knowledge, an important consideration in applying the taxonomy at an organizational level, Boisot furthers

this by identifying public, personal, proprietary and commonsense knowledge types Public knowledge, commonly referred to as “knowledge in society” (p 146), is easily codified and

diffused, resulting in its hard-to-control characteristic Once such knowledge has been accepted and used over time, it becomes difficult to contest, as “it acquires inertia” (p 147) Examples of just knowledge include scientific knowledge, structured and tested knowledge,

and formal and informal product information Proprietary knowledge, on the other hand, is

easily codified, but not widely diffused This form of knowledge develops through an individual’s personal interpretation of available knowledge in a particular context and situation The distinction lies in the codification process Boisot suggests the wide acceptance of public knowledge stems from the use of well-known and well-structured codes in the codification process, thus making it easily communicable As a result, the diffusion of such knowledge does not require much personal interaction, and the knowledge becomes detached from its source over time and use With proprietary knowledge, on the other hand, situational conditions cause the need for individuals to rely on personal codification processes and techniques to understand their context While easily codified, this knowledge is not easily diffused because the use of personal codes renders it irrelevant and uninteresting to contemporaries

Common sense knowledge is as widely spread as public knowledge, but not as codified, as it

is acquired slowly through as “idiosyncratic distillation of personal learning experiences and face-to-face encounters” (p 147) However, such knowledge does have the ability to diffuse throughout a population’s boundaries, thus creating cultural and even sub-cultural differences

within social structures Personal knowledge is more idiosyncratic in that the codes used are

embedded in an individual’s context and developed through the individual’s own actions and experience Such knowledge has the potential to be widely diffused through interactions, and eventually codified, but the elements of personal knowledge that do not achieve this will die out

Recognizing the significance of Boisot’s typology in understanding an organization’s internal knowledge, Choo (1998) expounds on the typology and proposes that organizational

knowledge may be categorized into tacit, explicit and cultural knowledge Cultural knowledge

creates a context for individuals in the organization to integrate available explicit knowledge with their tacit knowledge Cultural knowledge within an organization creates cognitive structures that individuals use to perceive and evaluate reality from the organization’s context, and builds shared beliefs, values and norms that guide individuals in evaluating their actions and interpretations to new information Sackmann (1992) identifies 4 types of cultural

knowledge from literature: Dictionary knowledge includes common definitions, expressions

and description used throughout the organization to describe the “what” component of

situations, such as what is a problem Directory knowledge includes common practices within

the organization with respect to particular situations, describing the “how” of situations, such

as how to solve a problem Recipe knowledge provides prescriptions for situations to rectify problems through action Axiomatic knowledge explains “why” events occur, providing

reasons and explanations to account for the occurrences These typologies provide hints to what kinds of knowledge organizations may leverage on to achieve competitive advantage

2.2.4 Knowledge and Action - Understanding Knowing

The discussion of literature thus far has treated knowledge as a resource that is owned at the

individual, group or organizational level Cook and Brown (1999) argue that knowledge should not simply be considered through a single epistemology of possession by individuals or groups Their contention that literature typically treats knowledge as a possession, which does not sufficiently capture and explain what is known, is harmonized by the proposition of a counterintuitive epistemology of practice, which complements possessed knowledge with

knowledge acquired through action This practice of action (called knowing) provides an

explanation for the epistemic work done as a part of action While knowledge is possessed, abstract, static and necessarily used in action, it is not action itself Knowing, on the other hand, is part of action, dynamic, concrete and rational, and is not possessed in the mind In this light, knowledge is then seen as “a tool at the service of knowing, not as something that, once possessed, is all that is needed” (p 388)

Neither is knowing tacit knowledge, which does not require action Knowing, however, makes use of tacit knowledge possessed in the mind to interact with the social and physical world Linking knowledge possessed and knowing in action with interactions in a context begin to explain how individuals and groups can begin to create new knowledge, and shed light on how organizations can take harness and facilitate such a process As Cook and Brown iterate:

“It is by adding knowing to knowledge that we can begin to account for the relationship between what we know and what we do And it is also how we can begin to see how new knowledge and knowing are generated.” (p 393)

Brown and Duguid (1991) provide an interpretation of how service technicians use canonical social practices in their approach to problem-solving and collaboration in daily work – unconventional practices which are not formalized within the organization’s work practice, yet are sought out and looked to by employees to gain knowledge in achieving work objectives The notion that such knowledge is situated in daily work practices, rather than canonical organizational routines, provides impetus to consider the knowing from action as a vital constituent of the knowledge construct Orlikowski (2002) stresses

non-that knowledge and practice are “reciprocally constitutive” (p 250), and therefore the significance of knowing is considerably high, so much so that it must not only be seen to complement the knowledge construct, but is inseparable from tacit knowledge - as capabilities are generated through knowing from action, they evolve into continued competence as the actions are practiced over time and across contexts, allowing individuals to reorder, rearrange and redesign their knowledge

2.2.5 Summary

The discussion so far has explored the epistemic roots of knowledge and their development into a theoretical construct with relation to the individual and organization While many of the taxonomies treat knowledge as a possession and state of mind of the individual, the notion that knowledge is partly constituted in situated action and practice illuminates a link between the individual and the organization As individuals act, practice and interact with the people and world around them, their knowledge is restructured to suit their current context, possibly adding to and challenging current knowledge These changes are manifested in their actions and value systems, which directly affect organizations as competence develops over time As organizations aim to achieve strategic competitive advantage through knowledge management, questions still lie in how and what mechanisms could be employed to harness and mold such knowledge in the organization The subsequent sections discuss these in the context of the organizational knowledge interactions and strategies proposed by literature to manage such knowledge

2.3 U NDERSTANDING K NOWLEDGE IN AN O RGANIZATIONAL C ONTEXT

The term ‘knowledge’ is instinctively identifiable with knowledge on an individual or personal level While many studies have paid close attention to this, much relatively current scholarly

work focuses on the management of knowledge within an organizational context, and even between organizations Prior sections in this review have discussed the role of individuals and their knowledge, but when considered collectively in an organization’s context, the benefits of managing this knowledge provides organizations with abilities to overcome traditional boundaries, obtain insights to solving problems, find new means to achieve competitive advantage, change outmoded processes and define new strategies The recognition of these capabilities has led to organizational knowledge gaining status as a critical resource to an organization’s survival in a global market and knowledge-based society (Drucker 1993) With this in mind, organizations able to tap into their knowledge assets effectively may achieve these benefits Success cases in this respect, including Chaparral Steel, Honda, Canon, and Buckman Laboratories, establish the business case for knowledge management (Leonard-

Barton 1995, Nonaka 1991, Stewart 1997)

Despite the realization of its significance, many organizations are still slow, or struggle, to adopt thorough and planned approaches to managing their knowledge – a phenomenon associated with the inherent difficulties of understanding knowledge management, and developing and implementing suitable programs without comprehensive frameworks to guide such initiatives (Holsapple & Joshi 2002, Nonaka 1991) Frameworks do exist but, argue Holsapple and Joshi (2002), “seem to address only certain KM elements” (p 49) Yet, if knowledge is valued as an organizational asset, it needs to be well managed This fundamentally implies a conceptual understanding of the characteristics of knowledge, from individual to collective knowledge, and the processes involved in effectively managing knowledge within an organizational context and its implications on the organization

As described earlier, the diverse theoretical traditions behind the exploration of the knowledge construct have led to numerous fragmented perspectives Organizational knowledge perspectives have frequently been based on the views of (i) knowledge as a state of mind and possession of the individual, (ii) knowledge as an object possessed by the organization, and more recently (iii) knowledge as an embedded property of communities of individuals (Wasko

& Faraj 2000) In his recent work, Patriotta (2003), in a similar fashion, broadly distinguishes

four contemporary approaches to organizational knowledge management (cognitive, knowledge-based view, situated and techno-science approaches) based on their theoretical roots, providing a thorough understanding of their assumptions, pitfalls and contributions The following subsections examine these perspectives, their related literature, motivations, implications and the role of IS, in providing a holistic view of knowledge management in organizations

2.3.1 The Cognitive Approach - Knowledge in Individuals

The cognitive approach was developed through studies in cognitivism and organizational

behavior, where theorists strived to develop causal relationships to explain human behavior within organizational settings (including works by Boland and Tenkasi, Argyris and Schon, Weick, Nelson and Winter) The focus on understanding how individuals in an organization think, reason and then act, based on their response to the world around them, form a substantial platform for understanding knowledge and knowing in the organization Studies from this approach formed the analogy of the individual mind as a computer, within which knowledge is viewed as a computational activity of cognitive representations used in rational reasoning Knowledge here is considered as a state of mind, inseparable from and controlled

by the individual, and thus not owned by the organization, but rather, treated as a ‘boundary resource’ (Wasko & Faraj 2000)

Consequently, such models of individual behavior can be extended to the organizational level, being viewed as a brain in which knowledge is stored in ‘mental’ structures or organizational routines and mechanisms, used in the sense-making of turbulent environments Sense-making leads to questioning, and subsequently modifying, established practices and organizational routines to adjust to changing environments Viewing these routines as organizational tacit knowledge, a link is deterministically formed between the action of individuals (with their knowledge) and their organizational context However, since knowledge

is owned by the individual, knowledge sharing will only occur as a result of self-interest

Furthermore, the organization’s knowledge is not more than the sum of knowledge of its individuals Organizational knowledge, therefore, can only be increased with the addition of new employees or through the learning of new knowledge by current employees

Wasko & Faraj (2000) argue that this perspective suggests knowledge loses some value once codified, restricting the ability to capitalize on information systems to enhance its management In this perspective, a knowledge management system (KMS) should be designed to establish links between knowledge seekers and knowledge holders within the organization, through communication tools such as online directories and intelligent email systems, and must remain accurate and up-to-date in providing such connections

However, criticisms of this approach include its continual focus on the rationality of the individual in an objective reality, while the amplification of knowledge from the individual to the organizational level is left hazily explained (Patriotta 2003) Furthermore, knowledge can neither be converted into nor treated as an organizational asset, making its retention and transferability a questionable issue

2.3.2 The Knowledge-Based View - Knowledge as an Organizational Asset

The knowledge-based view of the firm stems from economics and strategic management

studies (including works by Nonaka and Takeuchi, Grant, Spender) and views knowledge as

a vital factor of production within an organization, extending from the resource-based theory

of the firm (RBT) Knowledge, in this perspective, can exist separate from human cognition and action, and can be codified into organizational assets, including procedures and routines, and easily stored in KM systems and repositories

The organization is thus viewed as a collection of transferable knowledge assets As organizations are not regarded as equal under RBT, competitive advantage is seen to stem from within the organization Knowledge therefore, if leveraged upon, can provide the firm

with sustainable competitive advantage Knowledge affects the elements of the based view, namely material, human and monetary elements, and the external environment Studies in this perspective identify 6 forms in which organizational knowledge can be represented – participants’ knowledge, culture, infrastructure, knowledge artifacts, purpose and strategy Thus, the search for and employment of suitable structures, routines and other internal control mechanisms to facilitate the sharing, transfer and use of such organizational knowledge as a means for differentiation are the focus of this approach By understanding the various attributes of these representations of organizational knowledge, and their interactions with one another and the external environment, a series of knowledge manipulation activities and influences are prescribed for organizations to achieve performance advantages (Holsapple & Joshi 2002)

resource-Grant’s (1996) attempt to build a knowledge-based theory of the firm considers the activities and processes of knowledge transferability (sharing), aggregation (collection, storing and integration), appropriability (value), acquisition and application to be critical to the firm, and must be managed and coordinated The existence of the organization is to successfully instill the conditions that coordinate, integrate and apply sources of specialized knowledge into meaningful and efficient production Such a view of the firm begets implications on its hierarchy, requiring greater control for coordination and cooperation among its individuals Grant stresses that the integration of knowledge into the firm can only be brought about through the use of rules and directives, which should not impose authority, but instead facilitate the integration of knowledge from various specialist located throughout the firm The use of fluid cross-functional team-based structures and increasing accessibility to specialized knowledge can increase competitive advantage by providing the firm with access to timely and relevant knowledge This view is similar to Nonaka’s (1994) recommendation to form self-organizing teams, thus allowing the organization to tap not only its local knowledge, but also knowledge from other firms as well

The role of the KMS in this perspective is to facilitate easy codification, storage and transfer of various forms of knowledge in repositories Intelligent filters and advanced search engines are useful tools in facilitating the retrieval of such stored knowledge (Wasko & Faraj 2000)

However, while these underlying assumptions have led to practical perspectives, criticisms lie

in the inability to measure knowledge and the knowledge base, and recognize its value to the organization in terms of an enhancement to performance Furthermore, the assumption of knowledge as an organizational commodity discounts the importance of practice and knowing

in the creation, use and transfer of knowledge, treating organizational knowledge as a transparent, independent variable in the quest for competitive advantage, thus not completely elaborating the construct in its entirety (Patriotta 2003) Furthermore, the view of knowledge

as an organizational, rather than individual, asset implies that knowledge sharing and exchange should occur like other work practices, requiring incentives for individuals to participate in such activities When treated as a private good, the sharing and exchange of knowledge is hindered, thereby heightening the significance of organizational culture, rather than the use of technology, in encouraging such behaviors Lastly, this perspective provides insights into the provision and availability of knowledge in the organization, but not necessarily its application by individuals (Wasko & Faraj 2000)

2.3.3 The Situated Approach – Knowledge in Practice and Communities

The situated approach distinguishes itself from the previous approaches by rejecting the

assumptions that knowledge is a cognitive representation (as suggested by the cognitive approach) and a commodity (as suggested by the knowledge-based view of the firm) Instead, this approach focuses on the learning and innovative practices of individuals within the context of their work in the organization as the source of knowledge and knowledge creation – inline with the discussion of knowing in the previous section Brown and Duguid (1991) argue that the abstract perspectives of innovation, learning, work and knowledge in organization research have lost the details of practice, which is the root to understanding

these concepts Authors in this perspective (including Lave, Wenger, Brown and Duguid, and Orlikowski) move away from the traditional view of knowledge and examine knowledge within

the intricate environment of socially interconnected individuals in their action

Work is part of a socially constructed reality As systems, organizations break complex operations into simpler tasks However, in reality, employees interpolate these abstractions to meet dynamic situational demands with their own means and practices Individuals frequently rely on socially-constructed non-canonical practices such as narration and collaboration in their work practice These individuals do not construct their own learning experiences and knowledge; rather they tend to be enculturated into a community of practitioners – they learn

to function within the community of similar and like-minded individuals It is through interactions with other practitioners that individuals become practitioners themselves, rather than simply learning explicitly about the practice itself (Brown & Duguid 1991)

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) provide insights into how this occurs The distinct concepts of tacit and explicit knowledge are furthered by the authors, who posit that the tacit knowledge in individuals can be converted to explicit knowledge, and vice versa, resulting in the formation

of new knowledge Nonaka (1994) puts forth the scenario that, as individuals interact within the organization, tacit knowledge is transferred from one individual to another, largely due to the shared experiences and emotions these individuals encounter in their similar

organizational context This process of socialization can occur with or without the use of

formal language (for example, through on-the-job training, shared experiences and apprenticeships) Individuals will attempt to articulate their newly acquired tacit knowledge

into understandable forms This externalization of this knowledge is achieved through the use

of metaphors, “two contradicting concepts incorporated into one word” (Nonaka 1994, p 21) Metaphors afford the incorporation of the individual’s perceptions, beliefs and intuition into the free representation of the tacit knowledge in symbols Similarly, analogies can be used through rational thinking to associate these symbols with logic As an individual interacts and communicates the newly externalized knowledge with others, an opportunity arises to correct, validate and justify this explicit knowledge, as it integrates together with existing explicit

knowledge This combination creates more complex set of explicit knowledge, as the new

knowledge causes ‘disturbances’ in existing knowledge, requiring the need to reorganize, sort and reconfigure the existing knowledge With practice and commitment, these new sets of explicit knowledge are crystallized into the individual’s behavior, benefiting the organization

Nonaka & Konno (1998) highlight the need for practice in the internalization of this explicit

knowledge into tacit understanding As the individual acts on this new knowledge, changes in behavior, beliefs and values occur, within the greater context of the organization

Together, the four processes, known as the SECI model, bridge the concepts of explicit and tacit knowledge to provide a glimmer of understanding to how organizations can use knowledge in individuals to create new knowledge Success for knowledge creation lies in an organization’s ability to creatively support and provide a context for practices that “amplify” the individual’s knowledge, and eventually “crystallize” it as part of the organization’s knowledge network In achieving this amplification of individual knowledge into the organization, Nonaka (1994) stresses the importance of interactions between individuals The more voluminous the interactions and participants, the larger and faster the amount of knowledge amplified, thus accelerating the creation of new knowledge To raise the quality of the individual’s tacit knowledge, these interactions should introduce the participants to a variety of hands-on and job experiences (“high-quality experience”, p 21) on a committed, personal level (“knowledge

of experience”, p 22), leading to reflection (“knowledge of rationality”, p 22) that ultimately unites the actions of the individual’s body with the mind Such continuous high-quality interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge allow new knowledge to be integrated into the individual’s own belief and value systems, perceptions and interpretations

Providing the support for such interactions includes the provision of ‘ba’ (Nonaka & Konno 1998) - a Japanese concept which translates to “a shared space for emerging relationships”

(p 40) Ba creates an organizational context which may be harnessed for creating

knowledge, affording individuals the ‘space’ to reflect, or collectively, a ‘place’ for social

interaction The concept of ba refers to physical and/or mental space, and places the

individual in a greater context than the self, rising above the individual’s boundaries and

perceptions into those of collective participation Nonaka and Konno stress ba as an

important platform for organizations to concentrate their knowledge resources Coupled with the SECI model for knowledge diffusion and new knowledge creation, the authors develop 4

distinct types of ba – originating, interacting, cyber and exercising - one for each of the SECI

processes The individual’s knowledge is therefore subjected to the social construction of the collective and in a context greater than his or her own

The importance of a context plays a significant role in this perspective, taking the ownership

of knowledge away from the individual and embedding it into a socially-constructed system and reality within, and potentially across, the boundaries of organizations In such a manner, organizational knowledge is distributed across the organization’s communities of workers, with common knowledge among these communities represented in organizational routines and established practices

These communities of practitioners differ from groups in that they are non-canonical, not recognized by the organization, do not conform to the organizational boundaries (and are thus fluid), and they are emergent rather than formed based on organizational requirements

These emergent communities of practice (COPs) form part of the organization which, in this

perspective, can itself be viewed a community-of-communities Wenger and Snyder (2000) define communities of practice as “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise”, and identify how these COPs can effectively drive strategy, generate new lines of business, solve problems, spread best practices, develop members’ skill-sets and help create knowledge and retain talent However, the very characteristics of COPs that render them beneficial to the organization in terms of knowledge creation and sharing provide complications in their management Epitomized further by their informality, lack of organizational boundaries, fluctuating membership and constant evolution, COPs cannot be managed by recipe, but need to be nurtured and cultivated through organizational support and facilitation (Teigland 2000) Studies in this perspective therefore focus on the development and support of the interconnections and interdependencies between the entities involved Linking cognitive knowledge with action, and the individual with

the collective, such communities can serve as a communal resource for organizational knowledge and its sharing (von Krogh 2002)

The literature in this perspective has, however, not developed a complete theory of organizational knowledge yet As a result, the authors from this perspective consider it a critical piece of the puzzle, complementing the other perspectives of knowledge management, but not a standalone perspective to organizational knowledge management Other criticisms

of this perspective include the understudied importance of existing practices (shared objectives, organizational routines and beliefs) in affecting knowing in practice, i.e how an organization’s tacit knowledge affects the knowledge created, shared and used by its employees in their daily work practice However, this body of literature still succeeds in furthering the understanding of knowledge in the organization (Patriotta 2003)

2.3.4 The Techno-Science Approach

Understanding the divergence between the previous perspectives in terms of the assumptions

knowledge and knowing, the techno-science approach focuses on holistically addressing both

issues and their relationship While largely empirical, this perspective is grounded in the study

of knowledge in the process of scientific and technological innovation, and the web of interactions between the entities involved – including scientists, engineers and managers As with traditional scientific knowledge, knowledge here is treated as controversial, needing to be contested and agreed upon before becoming fact Rather than highlighting the exchange of knowledge involved, this perspective treats the interactions and dynamics of knowledge as a black box, focusing instead on the socially-constructed interactions between the various functional-spanning entities involved throughout the process of validation and production of scientific and technical knowledge In using such an approach, the scientific nature of the validation process precludes any assumptions made on the humanity of the entities involved, rendering the studies lopsided toward a non-human participant behavior (Patriotta 2003)

Perspective Characteristics Organizational Knowledge & IS Support

o Creation - only occurs through the addition of employees and individual learning

o Storage - knowledge loses value when it is codified

o Sharing – only occurs out of self-interest

o Application – knowledge is used in sense-making

o IS use - technologies can be used to facilitate links between knowledge seekers and providers

o Creation – Knowledge stems from the individuals in the organization

o Storage – knowledge can be stored easily in KMS

o Sharing – Knowledge can e shared through the KMS

o Application – Knowledge is made available, but is not necessarily used Directives, routines and team structures can be utilized to increase application

o IS use – advanced KMS storage, search, retrieval and update functionalities must be present to enable proper management of knowledge

SITUATED

o Focuses on learning and action in socialization processes

o Knowledge belongs to the community and is distributed across the organization

o Creation – occurs through action and socialization within a context

o Storage – knowledge is distributed throughout the communities in the organization

o Sharing – occurs through intense interactions with action and socialization, with the community provided the

‘ba’ for sharing

o Application – knowledge is applied when individuals become competent practitioners and learners in the community

o IS use – to promote effective communication and group support, embed knowledge into workflow, and capture specialized knowledge

TECHNO-SCIENCE

o A holistic view of knowledge and knowing

o Focus is on the social construction of scientific knowledge

o Creation – occurs when knowledge is contested and validated as fact

o Storage –.knowledge is stored in scientific and technical processes

o Sharing – knowledge is contested in the web of interactions between cross-functional individuals

o Application –.knowledge is negotiated, validated and used in innovation

o IS use – to facilitate linking entities involved across functional units and storing well-structured knowledge

Table 1: Organization Knowledge Perspectives

2.3.5 The Role of Information Systems in Managing Knowledge

When considered individually, the four perspectives outlined above provide somewhat conflicting implications for managing knowledge in the organization (summarized in Table 1) – knowledge is considered as a commodity, yet deeply rooted in the cognitive interfaces and collective practices of the individual within the organization Each perspective provides prescriptions and descriptions for the effective management of knowledge in organizations through the management of knowledge activities such as creation, storage and sharing In the information systems (IS) literature, characterized by its multidisciplinary nature, studies conducted draw from the strengths and assumptions of these various theoretical foundations

as well, in providing opportunities for technical IS support in KM While IT cannot support all aspects and activities of organizational knowledge management, Alavi and Leidner (2001) recommend the organization should deliberately manage at least the four basic processes and activities of knowledge management – creation, storage, application and transfer – and highlight the opportunities for IS support These processes and the potential of knowledge management systems is discussed here

2.3.5.1 Knowledge Creation

A commonly held perspective in IS literature for the process of knowledge creation stems from the previously described SECI model (Nonaka 1994), in which knowledge is created through the interaction, amplification and justification of individual tacit and explicit knowledge within a socially constructed context

In facilitating knowledge creation, Nonaka posits that high-quality interactions between individuals can be advocated through the socialization process in ‘self-organizing’ field teams, consisting of organizational members (and even individuals from outside the organization) collaborating to create a new concept With a contextual purpose for collaboration (the ‘field’), the individuals’ knowledge can be expressed through their various perspectives Similarly,

differences in perspectives can be resolved interactively in their socialization The role of the organization is to provide such a context, and construct these teams based on the principles

of self-organization, and not the traditional role- and authority-based structures Nonaka (1994) suggests a middle-up-down approach and a hypertext organizational design to managing the organization to promote the creation and integration of new knowledge in the organization through such teams Citing the location of knowledge creation as a problem in the traditional top-down and entrepreneurial bottom-up management approaches, the middle-up-down approach stresses on the role of middle management in bridging the gaps between top management’s objectives and visions of the firm, and the realities faced by lower managers and front-line staff Top management’s role in this structure of the firm is to guide knowledge creation by providing the self-organizing team with the organizational context and autonomy necessary to channel their collective knowledge onto the organizational and interorganizational levels, through the implementation of conceptual frameworks, clear directions and guidelines, organizational metaphors and symbols, and standards for evaluating the knowledge created

The notion of a hypertext organizational design and its characteristics exposes opportunities for the support of information systems in knowledge creation Alavi and Leidner (2001) further the SECI model by suggesting various uses of modern information systems and computer-mediated communication technologies to create and enhance the supporting ‘ba’ for knowledge creation by increasing the ease of access to information, and quality and frequency of interactions between individuals Cyber ‘ba’ provides virtual interaction for the combination of explicit knowledge between individuals, and can be facilitated by data warehousing and data mining technologies, document management systems and software agents Collaborative and communication technologies such as email, group support systems and intranets can be harnessed to increase the connectivity between various individuals, thus intensifying and quickening the knowledge creation process Intranets can further provide wide-spread and easy access to organizational tacit and explicit knowledge Software tools such as computer simulations and smart software tutors can also aid individual learning, while communication networks can increase the quality of knowledge creation by extending the