C H A P T E R 1

Introduction

WHAT IS KM?

There are numerous definitions of KM, quite literally scores of them. Indeed, Professor Michael Sutton [2008] of the Gore School of Business at Westminster College reported at the ICK (International Conference on Knowledge Management) meeting in 2008 that he had assembled a library of more than 100 of them. Three classic definitions of KM ones are presented here. At the very beginning of the KM movement, Davenport,T. (1994) offered the following:

“knowledge management is the process of capturing, distributing, and effectively using knowledge” This definition has the virtue of being simple, stark, and to the point. A few years later, the Gartner Group created the second definition of KM, which is perhaps the most frequently cited one (Duhon, 1998):

A discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise’s information assets. These assets may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously uncaptured expertise and experience in individual workers. This definition is a bit more specific and informative, and it is illuminating because it makes explicit not just conventional information and knowledge units, but also “tacit knowledge,” or implicit knowledge, that which is known, but not captured in any formal or explicit fashion.

Knowledge objects can enable the open interchange of useful knowledge that has been codified, but there are many other forms of knowledge interaction that take place in low tech environments or merely among individuals working together.

Upon being asked at a cocktail party to define Knowledge Management, one may offer an apt definition, comprised of primarily 3 distinct parts:

1) Classic Library and Information Science and Information Retrieval.

2) ICT, Information and Communication Technology.

3) HR,HumanRelations,changing the culture of the organization to facilitate knowledge sharing

and use.

The adoption of a new term to replace “knowledge management” is no more likely than it was for “word processing.” One of the more recent substitutions for the term ‘Knowledge Management’ is ‘knowledge flow management,’ preferred and used by Leistner, F. [2010] in his book Mastering Organizational Knowledge Flow. Leistner, Chief Knowledge Officer in SAS’ Global Professional Services’ division, has a background in computing and experience with IBM’s KM Institute. He is deeply conversant with the social issues inherent in knowledge sharing and the way knowledge is developed.

“THE STAGES OF KM DEVELOPMENT”:

In observing the development ofKMas practiced, described, and discussed at professional meetings, conferences, and trade shows, one can observe three clear stages.

Ø  STAGE ONE

The initial stage of KM was driven primarily by information technology, or IT. Organizations, particularly the large international consulting organizations, realized that their stock in trade was information and knowledge.

Ø  STAGETWO

The second stage of KM can be described simply as adding the recognition of the importance of the human and cultural dimensions.The second stage might be described as the, ’if you build it they will come’ is a fallacy stage. In other words, the recognition that building KM systems alone is not sufficient and can easily lead to quick and embarrassing failure if human factors are not sufficiently taken into account. As this recognition unfolded, two major themes from the business literature were brought into the KM fold.

Ø  STAGETHREE

The third stage was the awareness of the importance of content, and, in particular, an awareness of the

importance of the retrievability and, therefore, of the importance of the arrangement, description, and structure of that content. Since a good alternate description for the second stage of KM is the “it’s no good if they don’t use it” stage, then in that vein, perhaps the best description for the new third stage is the “it’s no good if they can’t find it” stage, or perhaps “it’s no good if they try to use it, but can’t find it.” Another bellwether is that TFPL (a major U.K. information and knowledge management consultancy), in their report of the October 2001 CKO (Chief Knowledge Officer) Summit that they hosted, reported that for the first time taxonomies emerged as a topic, and it emerged full blown as a major topic. The hallmark phrases emerging for the third stage are content management (or enterprise content management) and taxonomies.

SUPPLEMENTARYWAYS OF LOOKING ATKM

1.4.1 THE IBMTWOBYTWOMATRIX

A MAP OFTHEDOMAIN OFKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

KM may also be displayed and to a degree defined graphically through mapping. The following presents an expanded form of a graphic used by IBM in their KM consultancy to explain the value and purpose of KM.

The principles and practices of KM have developed in a very conducive environment, given that in this post-industrial information age, an increasingly larger proportion of the population consists of information workers. The role of the researcher, considered the quintessential information worker, has been studied in depth with a focus on identifying environmental aspects that lead to successful research [Allen,T., 1977, Goldhar et al., 1976, Koenig,M., 1990, 1992a, 2005, Mondschein, L., 1990, Orpen, C., 1985]. It is a logical development then to attempt to apply those successful environmental aspects to knowledge workers at large.The embarrassing fact, embarrassing at least to those who conducted research on the research environment, is that there is little evidence that this body of knowledge had any direct impact on the development of KM, a classic example of the silo phenomenon.KMappears to have developed in the business community quite independently of any knowledge of the body of research literature about research effectiveness. Nevertheless, this definition ofKMas the extension of the successfulR&Denvironment may ultimately prove to be the most straightforward and the most illuminating. An aside is that “Silo,” as in a container/building with no windows, is used frequently in the KM literature to refer to bits of an organization that do not interact with the rest of the organization.