Scenario 3 has been established in organizations that want to overcome the rigidity of their structural organization by strengthening informal networks for knowledge exchange. In this scenario, KM is viewed as a decentralized approach where indi- vidual and especially collective initiatives have to be supported by knowledge sponsors or champions. Existing networks should gain visibility and thus be strengthened and new networks and communities should be founded not as part of a centralized initiative, but as a supported bottom-up initiative by interested groups of people. The scenario is described in Table D-3.
TABLE D-3. Characterizing scenario 3: decentralized “network and community”
attribute characterization strategy
metaphor network and community
goals reduce barriers to (re-)use ideas of colleagues; make individuals aware of the advantages of networking; build trust between individu- als; establish an informal “secondary organizational structure”;
enable members of the organization to keep their personal knowledge relationships even if they take on new roles in geographically or organizationally dispersed areas
goal setting/strategy bottom-up approach
management support senior managers support networking and act as mentors for commu- nities
organization
scope collectives of people throughout the organization structural organiza-
tion
primarily informal organization; at most a project, mostly a (steering committee); no separate organizational unit
knowledge transfer and exchange
through a network of formal and informal relationships
roles community manager, knowledge networking officer, mentor, knowl- edge worker
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
Key enablers of this scenario are self-motivated networks or communities that can spark the KM initiative. This is especially the case if the formal structural orga- nizational design relies all too much on the hierarchy and these networks have been in place for some time to account for communication links circumventing the rigid bureaucratic structures. Goals in this scenario are to promote networking in the organization and to build trust between different organizational units. This leads to the establishment of an informal secondary or, in the terms of the hypertext organi- zation12, an informal tertiary organization of networks and communities apart process focus knowledge processes, e.g., community management process, knowl- edge asset creation process involving communities; knowledge- intensive business processes
organizational culture
family-culture model and (preferred) network/discourse model of exchange of ideas
KMS
ICT infrastructure sophisticated KMS infrastructure with an emphasis on communica- tion and collaboration as well as visualization of networks, commu- nity building and support
KMS functions communication, collaboration, knowledge search, presentation, orga- nization, acquisition and publication
economics
funding support for communities (e.g., travelling, community home spaces, time) initially via budgets from the organizational units which the community members work for; communities might also take on tasks or suggest ideas and get credit for these
measuring success quality of communication in networks and communities; use and user satisfaction with community-oriented KMS and knowledge-spe- cific services offered decentrally (e.g., moderation, community homespaces)
aspects of implementation
getting started sometimes with a core group, e.g., a group of people enthusiastic with KM as the starting unit; develop communities/networks
enabler intrinsically motivated networks or communities sparking the KM initiative
critical tasks sponsoring/support of communities and knowledge networks; com- munity-oriented design of knowledge and business process; support of decentral approach/politics of network support
12. See Nonaka 1994, 32ff, see also section 6.1 - “Structural organization” on page 158.
TABLE D-3. Characterizing scenario 3: decentralized “network and community”
attribute characterization
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
from the formal primary organizational structure, the hierarchy, and the formal sec- ondary organization, the project and team organization.
The organizational support for this kind of decentralized KM initiative can be manyfold. Aspects of networks and communities can be integrated into the formal process design, e.g., by the definition of network-oriented knowledge processes.
An example would be linking the publication process of knowledge elements to communities as “subject matter specialist networks” which evaluate, refine, orga- nize and link the knowledge elements. Communities may also play important roles in knowledge-intensive business processes. Examples are to provide “official”
sources for knowledge or to oblige process managers or all employees working on the same process tasks to participate in specialized, formally supported networks.
As opposed to scenario 2, there is no separate organizational unit responsible for KM. It is rather a kind of steering committee or a “meta-community” of key mem- bers of the networks or communities or at most a project that provides the organiza- tional and ICT infrastructure needed to foster the decentralized growing of KM ini- tiatives. This coordinating committee also distills best practices about the handling of knowledge in the networks and communities. Also, community moderators and boundary spanners who play an active role in several networks and communities broker knowledge between communities and identify new subject areas that could be supported by new communities.
Consequently, the goal setting procedure employs a bottom-up approach which makes sure that the knowledge needs of the networks and communities are served rather than installing “just another” top-down goal setting procedure that does not consider these needs. However, the alignment with business strategy is certainly a crucial point in this scenario which often leads to insufficient management support for the initiative.
Funding of this KM initiative might start with informal budgets provided by those formal organizational units that the members of the networks or communities come from. Later on, communities might also be funded directly by taking on assignments, offering products or services or getting credit for suggestions, ideas, success stories or measurable results.
ICT support for this scenario can be as manyfold as the organizational instru- ments established to foster decentralized networking. There will be a focus on functions that increase the visibility of networks and communities: knowledge maps, directory services and catalogues (cluster 1 in Figure D-6).
There will also be an emphasis on collaboration and learning services, espe- cially for dislocated, virtual networks to support communication, coordination and cooperation between personal meetings which should still take place regularly.
Community home spaces not only provide support for interactive KMS functions.
These community-centered portals are a prime instrument to bridge integrative and interactive KMS functions with the help of contextualized knowledge repositories holding community-related, valued knowledge elements. These elements are linked to the individual members or sub-groups of the community who also rate the elements and give feedback about their successful or unsuccessful application.
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
FIGURE D-6. Scenario 3: Decentralized “network and community”
Organizational environment Strategic
level
Design level
Operational manage- ment level
ICT infrastructure, KM tools & systems KM roles
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 Identification
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 Personal
valuation 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
Types of knowledge 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.
Additionally, discovery services are applied in order to profile employees, to recommend membership in networks as well as to access homespaces of communi- ties and networks potentially of interest for them. Also, search filters can be applied according to the networks to which the searching individual belongs and community- or network-related information can be pushed to update the knowl- edge of the network’s members. Compared to this strong support with discovery, communication and collaboration functions, the publication services are targeted to a lesser extent. Although basic support for this group of functions is required in order to develop community homespaces and provide the knowledge elements searched for with discovery services, the support of this group is less emphasized than in scenario 2.
Consequently, knowledge is primarily viewed as bound to a social system (clus- ter 2). The main types of knowledge targeted are combinations of tacit, electroni- cally inaccessible and electronically accessible knowledge with an emphasis on the informal, unapproved, unsecured side. The decentralized approach supports spe- cific, particular, contextualized knowledge rather than abstract, general or decon- textualized knowledge as in scenario 2. As networks and communities are not nec- essarily limited to the organization’s boundaries, both, organization-internal knowledge as well as organization-external knowledge are targeted (cluster 3).
Concerning KM roles, both, formal collectives (teams, work groups) and infor- mal collectives (networks, communities) are targeted with an emphasis on the latter ones (cluster 4). As it is a decentralized initiative there is no CKO or knowledge manager to oversee a corporate-wide KM program, but knowledge partners and stakeholders in the various business units participating in the effort. The specific KM roles established are primarily on the inter-personal left-hand side of the KM diamond as opposed to scenario 2’s concentration on the right-hand side.
The boundary spanner is a key role in scenario 3 to prevent communities from the negative effects of seclusion and an exaggerated and unhealthy “we”-feeling at the cost of the “other” networks and communities. The consequence would be bar- riers hindering the free flow of ideas and information across networks and commu- nities and a reinforced “Not invented here” syndrome on the level of informal net- works. Boundary spanners also integrate external knowledge sources and networks into the organization in a decentralized manner. Community moderators or manag- ers support the smooth functioning of the networks. Mentors integrate newcomers quickly into the “right” networks and introduce them to the communities’ norms and rules. Coaches might help to overcome unnecessary knowledge barriers, help to integrate knowledge skeptics into networks, help them to build trust in these col- lectives and, just like boundary spanners, prevent networks from becoming too rigid (cluster 4).
On the operational level, the primary focus of scenario 3 is on inter-subjective knowledge that is shared in informal networks and communities, on community knowledge and inter-personal valuation of knowledge. Transactive memory sys- tems13 might serve as a strong metaphor to guide the design of organizational and ICT instruments to support this scenario. The second strong emphasis is on the
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
application of knowledge, on knowledge in use, on collaboration and validation of knowledge as well as feedback which is ideally immediately shared once again in teams, work groups, networks and communities (cluster 5).