Scenario 4 describes a more recent approach than the preceding scenarios and therefore cannot be found in as many organizations. Main focus of this scenario is to personalize the organization’s KM efforts and to have every employee ideally responsible for his or her own handling of knowledge14. The organization creates an environment (organizational and ICT infrastructure, career and reward system) conducive for individuals to commit to an improved handling of knowledge and therefore increases motivation to share and reuse knowledge.
Key enablers in this scenario are highly motivated employees and a high share of experts in the organization who belong to a strong professional community.
Examples are medical doctors, engineers, computer specialists, lawyers etc.
Experts often have highly specialized competencies and consequently can be char- acterized by a highly individualized knowledge demand. Therefore, standardized knowledge supply is not likely to match the individual knowledge demand of most experts in the organization. Also, because experts often belong to a professional community, they are usually part of networks that cross the organizational bound- aries. It is more difficult to make these networks visible and support them than the primarily organization-internal communities in scenario 3. Also, experts use a wide variety of knowledge sources outside the organization. Combined with the highly individualized knowledge demand, this might render a central organizational unit ineffective in the acquisition of external knowledge15. On the contrary, profession- als often act as boundary spanners to the organization’s environment themselves.
Table D-4 describes this scenario in more detail.
Main goals in this scenario are to maximize flexibility of experts to gain access to the knowledge they need and to maximize support of their creative potential.
This also maximizes decentralization of the KM initiative. Knowledge is personal- ized and can be appropriated to experts whose motivation and capability are
13. See Wegner 1986; see also chapter 6 - “Organization” on page 153.
14. The term personalization is used here to denote the tailoring of the presentation of orga- nizational knowledge bases to personal knowledge profiles. The provision of personal knowledge portals supports quick responses to the questions the knowledge workers pose to the KMS. The term should not be mistaken as a personalization strategy (see Hansen et al. 1999).
15. One of the interviewed professional services companies faces this problem because the knowledge demands of the various business lines differ largely from each other. Also, due to the increased dynamics in knowledge generation the central KM unit runs into the problem that it forms a bottleneck for the access of business lines to the (expensive!) external knowledge resources. Therefore, the central KM unit concentrates on the most general external liaisons (e.g., to Reuters, Gartner Group etc.) in order to profit from economies of scale. Apart from that access to external knowledge sources is not orga- nized centrally any more.
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
strengthened. Organizational barriers impeding the free access to knowledge by experts are reduced. The focus thus is on the individual expert or knowledge worker in his or her operative, knowledge-intensive business processes and the professional networks to which experts belong.
TABLE D-4. Characterizing scenario 4: personal “idea and individual”
attribute characterization strategy
metaphor idea and individual
goals strengthen the employees’ ability and motivation to learn; maximize professionals’ flexibility for innovation; offer access to knowledge and knowledge providers tailored to the needs of the knowledge seekers
goal setting/strategy through business strategy which is broken down via business pro- cesses and or project processes until individual tasks and knowledge workers are reached; separate knowledge-related goals are coordi- nated in e.g., a committee
management support senior managers and/or senior professionals act as sponsors for themes/topics
organization
scope experts/professionals throughout the organization; networks span- ning the organizational border
structural organiza- tion
KM is organized around topics/themes for which subject matter spe- cialists are responsible; these might be networked and/or supported by a central unit, but this is not a prerequisite as in the centralized scenario
knowledge transfer and exchange
knowledge workers are personally responsible for the exchange and transfer of knowledge and for networking within/across organiza- tions
roles subject matter specialist, boundary spanner, coach, expert/profes- sional
process focus knowledge-intensive business processes organizational
culture
strong professional ethics; all models of exchange of ideas with an emphasis on the network/discourse model
KMS
ICT infrastructure sophisticated KMS infrastructure which allows individuals to per- sonalize their demand for knowledge and the way they enter the organizational knowledge space; infrastructure for personalized knowledge spaces, virtual workspaces, individualized knowledge portals which lead to information and communication supply
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
This highly individualized approach can be supported with a theme-centered sponsorship by senior managers. This drives the collective orientation of experts and leaves the organization of knowledge creation and development up to the indi- vidual experts and their networks. Consequently, a steering committee is set up to develop a knowledge map, identify knowledge gaps and define themes or topics important to the organization. In a next step, existing knowledge sources and espe- cially experts holding skills and competencies in the respective themes are identi- fied and the corresponding networks are made visible. This identification function might well be centralized in the steering committee or even in a separate organiza- tional unit, but this unit is not responsible for the KM initiative in general as in sce- nario 2.
After the organization-wide knowledge demand is roughly estimated, the experts and knowledge workers are assigned personal budgets for knowledge- related activities. The use of these budgets ideally is entirely left to the experts. The budgets can be spent on organization-internal as well as organization-external knowledge events, access to knowledge sources or published documents. Addition- ally, the reward system is extended so that employees get virtual bonuses which they can use to buy shares in topics and/or activities of project teams or networks within the organization. As a consequence, the experts will not only be interested in KMS functions profiling, personalization, contextualization, recommendation and filtering with the help of intelligent agents; knowledge acquisition, organization, communication, collaboration and publication
economics
funding ideally, every knowledge worker has his or her own budget for knowledge-related activities, can buy shares of knowledge projects and can buy in the knowledge supply and thus create his or her own knowledge workspace; additionally, there can be themes/topics sup- ported by organizational units, such as departments, divisions etc.
which can be subscribed for free
measuring success as part of the instruments evaluating professionals; quality, use and user satisfaction of KMS supporting the professionals; market model with professionals in the role of shareholders in knowledge-related projects and activities
aspects of implementation
getting started set up steering committee; define themes/topics; evaluate demand for knowledge
enabler intrinsically motivated professionals; high ratio of experts to partici- pants; diverse and highly individual knowledge demand
critical tasks knowledge maps and access policies; appropriability of knowledge;
strategies for the personal handling of information and knowledge TABLE D-4. Characterizing scenario 4: personal “idea and individual”
attribute characterization
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
the progress of the topics, projects and activities keeping them up to date with the latest developments, but they will also be motivated to share knowledge with the projects from which they have bought shares to make sure that the projects will be successful.
If the project or activity succeeds, then the knowledge worker gets dividends from the returns that the organization realizes by exploiting the knowledge devel- oped in the projects, much like an investment in the share market at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or the German equivalent Deutsche Bửrse. Topics have to be supported by formal organizational units, e.g., work groups, departments, divi- sions or projects etc. in order for resources to be accountable to them. This also is the primary mechanism to integrate
x the formal organizational design focused on performing daily activities effi- ciently (work groups, business processes) and on improving the work processes (projects) with
x the informal secondary, and personalized knowledge organization.
Additionally, there might also as well be topics which are free to subscribe to and thus cannot be bet on as in the cases described above. The emphasis on holding employees responsible for their handling of knowledge requires that the employees are skilled in the personal handling of information and knowledge, in self-evalua- tion and self-motivation. As mentioned above, the key enabler is that a substantial part of employees are professionals, highly intrinsically motivated experts. The skills in personal handling of information and knowledge can be honed e.g., in workshops or with the help of coaches. This provides employees with strategies, instruments and tools to improve the goal setting, evaluation of the personal knowl- edge processes16.
From an ICT viewpoint, the focus is on supporting personalization of the knowl- edge supply. Thus, the primary tools are personalization services through which the experts enter the organization’s knowledge sources and networks. Conse- quently, the experts’ or knowledge workers’ interests have to be profiled exten- sively—and intelligently—and discovery services have to take these profiles into account. The KMS can also recommend knowledge workers with similar profiles to found a network. Generally, recommendations, ratings and valuations of knowl- edge sources and contents by other experts play an important role in this scenario.
Personalization and discovery services are backed by integration services, e.g., taxonomies, ontologies, directory services and catalogues as well as publication, collaboration and learning services. This scenario demands the most comprehen- sive and sophisticated KMS solutions as tools and services on the personalization level of the KMS architecture17 require advanced knowledge services for discov- ery, publication, collaboration and learning as well as tools for knowledge organi- zation (cluster 1 in Figure D-7).
16. A good collection of techniques and recommendations can be found in Reinmann-Roth- meier/Mandl (2000, 25ff and 99ff).
17. See section 7.3.3 - “Integrating architectures for KMS” on page 311.
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
FIGURE D-7. Scenario 4: Personalized “idea and individual” approach
Organizational environment Strategic
level
Design level
Operational manage- ment level
ICT infrastructure, KM tools & systems KM roles
Types of knowledge
I II III
I
II
III
Chief Knowledge Officer/
knowledge manager knowledge partner/
stakeholder
knowledge base administrator
author
knowledge administrator mentor
coach
community manager
boundary
spanner knowledge
broker coordinator for
KM
subject matter specialist
knowledge
sponsor knowledge
skeptic network &
community team work group knowledge worker/
participant/member of:
Knowledge
specific, particular, contextua- lized
abstract, general, decontextua- lized
tacit explicit
informal, unapproved
formal, approved, institutionalized
individual collective
unsecured secured
(electroni- cally) inaccessible
(electronically) accessible organiza-
tion- external
organization- internal
object social system individual
2
Individual knowledge
Knowledge in use
Results
Validation
Application
Sharing Inter-subjective knowledge
Institutionalization
Storing
Institutionalized knowledge
Intellectual access Physical access
Representation Feed-back
Accumulating Developing
Recording Researching
Individual learning
Repackaging Reproduction
Diss emin
ation Com
munication Internal communication
Knowledge products
&
services
9 8
5 3
7
6 3
1
Organizational learning cycle Verification 10
Linking
4
Org.
Learning
Classification
(knowledge push)
Selling Analyzing
Deletion Archiving Forgetting
Formal approval
Operational level
Creation Personal
valuation
Inter-personal valuation
Knowledge sources Org. information Meta-information
2 Identification
Organization Collaboration
Community
knowledge Transactive memory
Decisions Identification
management of
people & processes management of
ICT infrastructure management of knowledge
structures topics& management of
other interventions design of knowledge
structure & topics:
-
knowledge structures - taxonomies - ontologies
types of knowledge -
design of ICT resources:
- KMS architecture - functions of knowledge management tools &
systems
- deployment of KMS
design of other inter- ventions:
- architecture - recruitment of experts - therapeutic interven- tions
identification of knowledge gaps, definition of core competencies and strategic knowledge assets, development of knowledge (management) goals and strategies, evaluation of goal achievement organizational design:
- knowledge processes &
activities, knowl.-inten- sive business processes - roles&responsibilities - networks&communities
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
Concerning types of knowledge, there is no explicit focus as experts are ideally free in their decision about what kind of mechanisms are best to exchange knowl- edge (cluster 2).
As mentioned above, the primary focus considering KM roles is on knowledge workers, their networks, teams and work groups. All knowledge workers may and should act as authors, theme-oriented boundary spanners, subject matter special- ists and knowledge brokers (cluster 3). Experts and knowledge workers “adopt” a theme or a couple of themes for which they are held responsible. Coaches help newly recruited professionals to quickly network with other professionals and per- sonalize their knowledge workspaces.
On the operational level, the focus is on the organizational learning cycle with an emphasis on individual learning, individual knowledge, its sharing and its application (cluster 4). Personalization thus not only targets personal knowledge and learning. On the contrary, individual learning in groups, teams and networks is focused quite as much as experts and knowledge workers usually work and learn in these collectives. Additionally, there is a strong need for visualization of what is happening in the organizational learning cycle – what themes are deemed impor- tant and who knows what about these themes. Identification therefore is an impor- tant service function in this scenario.
The empirical results suggest that so far KM initiatives in most organizations can be classified as resembling scenarios 1 or 2 whereas scenarios 3 and 4 do not gain equally high attention. Figure D-8 gives an overview of a stage model that shows possible phases of KM initiatives in organizations. Many organizations had started KM in a way similar to scenario 1 and then either moved up to scenario 2 or 3. Scenario 4 presents the currently most advanced step in the organizations and was implemented either on the basis of scenario 2 or on the basis of scenario 3.
FIGURE D-8. Stage model for KMS supported KM initiatives
However, it might as well be that once organizations arrive in scenario 4, they in turn focus networks and communities as in scenario 3 and the KM pendulum visu-
1. knowledge management starter 2. centralized
“market and hierarchy”3. decentralized
“network and community”
4. personal “idea and individual”
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
alized in Figure D-9 swings from the person corner back to the collective corner.
Also, the pendulum might swing to a formal organizational design as described in scenario 2 which centrally coordinates the organizational infrastructure and KM instruments, the organization corner. The opposite of this scenario might be a strong focus on building knowledge alliances, fostering cross-organizational net- works and communities, visualizing and integrating external knowledge sources, the environment corner.
FIGURE D-9. The knowledge management pendulum
The shaded area in Figure D-9 shows the strategic KM arena. Within this arena, the KM steering committee chooses a KM strategy that provides energy for the pendulum. For example, a KM strategy that targets the network and community scenario, attempts to move the pendulum towards the collective corner. Depending on the direction in which the pendulum currently swings, the KM strategy’s energy might boost the pendulum, slow it down or even force it to turn around. The current swing of the pendulum thus can make it easier or more difficult to achieve the goals formulated in the strategy. Thus, choosing the right KM strategy might also depend on recent developments of the organization’s way of handling knowledge, the current swing of the pendulum.
person
KM strategy arena KM steering committee
KM pendulum
organization collective
environment
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
The numerous attempts at integrating ideas, concepts and approaches to knowl- edge management from a variety of perspectives as discussed in part B, the descriptive findings presented and the hypotheses tested in part C as well as the scenarios developed in this part have addressed the research questions posed in part A. Studies of KMS require an interdisciplinary approach which combines research findings from e.g., strategy, organization science, human resource management, organizational psychology and sociology, artificial intelligence as well as computer science. The approach presented here draws from all of these disciplines and inte- grates selected theories and approaches developed in these disciplines. The two models depicted in Figure D-8 and Figure D-9 are meant to stimulate research that builds upon this work. The theoretical and empirical results together with the qual- itative scenarios should help the reader to get a feeling about what KMS supported KM initiatives currently look like and what potentials they have to improve an organization’s way of handling knowledge. In the following, this investigation is concluded with a glance to possible future developments in the field of KMS.
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
18 Outlook
Knowledge management systems neither contain knowledge, nor do they manage it. This fact has provoked substantial and partially justified critic from proponents of the human-oriented KM fraction. Despite its pragmatic foundation as an inte- grated set of information and communication technologies supporting knowledge management and the many unresolved questions, the term KMS seems to provide a powerful metaphor that is able to draw the attention of researchers from multiple disciplines and practitioners with diverse backgrounds alike.
The term knowledge management system is difficult to define. The definition of KMS given in this book distinguishes between KMS in a broad view and KMS in a narrow view. In the broad view, many tools and systems have been proposed as
“KM enabled” or as supporting KM. The list of KMS functions presented here and the approaches to a classification show the diversity of tools and systems that are offered on the market. In this view, the term KMS generally addresses information and communication technologies used for knowledge management.
There is also a handful of software vendors that attempt to offer comprehensive, integrated platforms on which sophisticated KM solutions can be built. These plat- forms as well as application systems that combine and integrate a number of ICT in support of KM, no matter whether they are built with or without using these plat- forms, can be seen as KMS in a narrow view. They help knowledge workers to cre- ate, locate, acquire, reconstruct, share, integrate and apply knowledge. The integra- tion of formerly separated solutions, the addition of “intelligent” functions and the design “with KM in mind” distinguishes KMS from more traditional systems. In this view, the term KMS denotes platforms or specific application systems to sup- port knowledge workers in the management of knowledge.
What could be essential contributions to the design of strategically relevant KM initiatives that are supported by KMS? KM initiatives can be viewed as founded in a strategic approach, the resource-based view. Consequently, strategic consider- ations with respect to knowledge management guide the design and implementa- tion of organizational and ICT instruments for KM whereas available KM tools and systems enable the implementation of KM instruments and thus influence KM strategies. Figure D-10 shows five essential concepts that can be used to connect KM strategies and KMS. These are:
x assets: the economic consideration of knowledge as intellectual capital, the analysis of an organization’s (core) competencies and the embedding of this approach in the organization’s management system,
x structure: the development of knowledge structures, taxonomies and ontologies that describe the organizational knowledge base,
x instruments: the introduction of KM instruments that consist of person-oriented and organizational measures as well as supporting ICT solutions,
x processes: the design of knowledge-intensive business processes and knowledge processes as well as