Knowledge Management BBA/BS & MBA Knowledge Management Models Module 3 Course Lecturer: Farhan Mir BASIC PARADIGMS ▪ Knowledge is subjective, complex, and dynamic It need a holistic KM approach ▪ Need a measurement tools to assess the implementation progress ▪ Knowledge should drive innovation on product, service, & systems BASIC PARADIGMS DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE BASIC PARADIGMS 3 types of content to managed ; ▪ Combination of experience, value, contextual information, & expert point of view, as an evaluation foundation to produce new experience and information ▪ Message in the form of document and audio visual ▪ A collection of objectives fact on an event BASIC PARADIGMS ▪ Davenport & Prusak, 1998 → knowledge creation take place between & within human ▪ Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995 → knowledge is a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the truth ▪ Polanyi, 1966 → tacit is a personal way of knowledge construction, affected by emotions ▪ 80/20 rules (80% tacit & 20% explicit) Most of our knowledge reside in the mind of the knowers BASIC PARADIGMS EXPLICIT Knowledge ▪ Codified (arrange in a systematic code) ▪ Formally expressed ▪ Easy to be acquired, shared, stored, distributed Book, audio video, graph, images, database ▪ Stated using words and algorithm (set of rules to follow) ▪ Contain a little/small knowledge BASIC PARADIGMS TACIT Knowledge ▪ Difficult to understand ▪ Difficult to communicate ▪ Difficult to translate or abstract ▪ Personally ▪ Root of all knowledge KM MODELS ▪ Choo – Sense making model (1998) ▪ Von Krogh & Roos – Organizational Epistemology model (1995) Epistemology → investigation of what distinguish justified belief from opinion ▪ Nonaka & Takeuchi Knowledge spiral model (1995) ▪ Wiig – Build & Use Knowledge (1993) ▪ Boisot – I-Space model (1998) KM MODELS – the reason ▪ Holistic approach to KM ▪ Already reviewed, critized, discussed extensively ▪ Implemented & field tested for reliability & validity ▪ Widest possible perspective of KM Van KROGH & ROOS ▪ Distinguish individual & social knowledge ▪ No knowledge without knower ▪ Strong need to maintain link between knowledge object & those who knowledgeable (experts, experience user) ▪ Cognitive perspective indicate that a cognitive system (human brain or computer) creates representation (model) of reality, & learning occurs when it manipulated Van KROGH & ROOS ▪ The cognitive epistemology approach View organizational knowledge as self-organizing system Human transparent from outside information The brain is a machine based on logic and deduction Organization pick up or search information from environment Van KROGH & ROOS ▪ The connectionist approach Knowledge is wholeness (brain is not sequentially process) Information generated from environment & internally (familiarity/practice) Knowledge reside in the mind of individual & in the connection among them Unbreakable bond between knowledge & those who absorb & make use of them Van KROGH & ROOS Factor that prevent the successful KM ; (p.51) ▪ Mind-set of individual ▪ Communication in organization ▪ Organizational structure ▪ Relationship between member ▪ Management of human resources (knowers) Knowledge Enabling ▪ Organization activities that positively affect knowledge creation NONAKA & TAKEUCHI ▪ Knowledge forms, sharing, diffusion of knowledge needed to create or produce innovation ▪ Study of japanese company key success in innovation base on/stem from tacit approach One-ness of humanity, nature, mind, body, self, other Individual involvement with object thru selfinvolvement & commitment to create knowledge NONAKA & TAKEUCHI Knowledge creation process ▪ Begin with individual, personnal, & private knowledge (researcher, manager, worker) ▪ Translate into valuable, public, organizational knowledge ▪ Continuously and occurs at all level in organization ▪ In many cases, happen in unexpected & unplanned way NONAKA & TAKEUCHI 4 Model of Knowledge Conversion ▪ Tacit → tacit ; process of socialization ▪ Tacit → Explicit ; externalization ▪ Explicit → Explicit ; combination ▪ Explicit → Tacit ; internalization The creation of knowledge consist of social process between individual in which knowledge transformation is not simply unidirectional, but interactive & spiral NONAKA & TAKEUCHI NONAKA & TAKEUCHI Socialization ▪ Sharing knowledge thru social interaction ▪ Discussion, exchange of thought, mentoring ▪ Informal way (in a coffee shop, paking lot) ▪ Rarely capture or written formally (remain tacit) ▪ Easy & effective but limited way to create & share knowledge ▪ Example ; knowledge day, brainstorming activitiy Externalization ▪ Convert tacit to explicit (visible form of tacit) ▪ Need an intermediary to transform knowledge Taped, recorded, written, drawn, made tangible ▪ Need someone (something) that can interprete, extract, synthesize the idea into a concrete way (format, length, detail) ▪ Once the knowledge materialize, the scope increased Wider audience can use, understand, & apply it Easily share & leveraged ▪ Example ; journalist READ THE EXAMPLE IN THE TEXTBOOK – PAGES 55 NONAKA & TAKEUCHI NONAKA & TAKEUCHI Combination ▪ Combine pieces of explicit knowlegde into new form Trend analysis, executive summary, review, new database ▪ No new knowledge, just combining, complement ▪ Concept are sorted & systematized ▪ Example : preparing lecture material NONAKA & TAKEUCHI Internalization ▪ Diffusing & embedding newly acquired behaviour ▪ Learning by doing ▪ Convert or integrate shared or individual experiences into other individual mental model Broaden, extend, reframe within their tacit base Understand & learn from experiences, best practise People, then do the job differently ▪ Example : pool of customer complain & how to handling it READ THE EXAMPLE IN THE TEXTBOOK – PAGES 56 NONAKA & TAKEUCHI Knowledge Spiral ▪ Knowledge creation is not sequential ▪ Show how organization articulate, organize, & systematize individual tacit knowledge ▪ Continuous activity of knowledge flow, sharing, & conversion by individual, community, & organization ▪ Using metaphore, model, & analogy in converting tacit → explicit → tacit its strengths is in its simplicity—both in terms of understanding the basic tenets of the model and in terms of being able to quickly internalize and apply the KM model CHOO MODEL ▪ Stress on the importance of sense–making, knowledge creation, & decision making ▪ Focus on how information elements are selected and subsequently fed into organizational actions CHOO MODEL CHOO MODEL Sense Making ▪ Identify priorities & filter the information ▪ Construct interpretations by exchange & negotiate information ▪ Combine with previous experience CHOO MODEL Weick, 2001 : ▪ Loosely coupled system – human genome System that can be taken apart/revised without damaging the entire system Permit adaptation, evolution, extension ▪ Tight coupled system – human being ▪ Sense making consist of 4 integrated process Ecological change (environtment) Enactment (construct, rearrange, clarify) Selection (interpret & rationale changes) Retention (provide the organization with new experiences) AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ▪ Think for a while ▪ Pick one of many important experiences in Ur life which require your decision making skills ▪ What did you do ▪ How did you think it over ▪ What is the reason for Ur decision ▪ How that decision affect Ur life afterward ▪ Is it the right or wrong decision? ▪ What you learned from the situation ▪ Do U think it’s worth to share as an valuable experience WIIG MODEL ▪ In order to be useful & valuable, knowledge must be organized, depending on what will the knowledge use for ▪ Dimensions in Wiig model Completeness - knowledge sources relevance Connectedness – relations between different knowledge objects Congruency – consistency between knowledge object (no inconsistency, no misunderstanding) Perspective & purpose – know something using dual purpose & perspective to organize knowledge ▪ Using semantic network to represent different perspective of the same knowledge content WIIG MODEL ▪ Three level of knowledge Public - explicit Shared – held by knower & share at work Personal – tacit, most complete from, unconciously use in daily life ▪ Four types of knowledge Factual – data, measurement Conceptual – concept & perspective Expectational – hypothesis, judgement Methodological - reasoning, strategies, dec. making BOISOT I-SPACE MODEL ▪ Knowledge concept of an ‘information good’ What an observer extract from data, based on their expectation or prior knowledge ▪ Effective knowledge sharing require sender & receiver share context & coding scheme ▪ Propose 2 key points More easily data can be structured & converted into information , more diffusible Less data that has been so structured requires a shared context for its diffusion, the more diffusible it becomes BOISOT I-SPACE MODEL I-Space Model ▪ Data is structured & understood thru codification & abstraction ▪ Codification → Arrange into a systematic code Creation of content categories More categories, less abstract BOISOT I-SPACE MODEL I-Space Model ▪ Visualized in 3 dimensions Codified – uncodified • Link to categorization & classification Abstract – concrete • Link to knowledge creation thru analysis & understanding Diffused – undiffused • Link to information access & transfer BOISOT I-SPACE MODEL Social Learning Cycle ▪ Scanning ▪ Problem solving ▪ Abstraction ▪ Diffusion ▪ Absorption ▪ Impacting COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM ▪ View organization as an intelligence complex adaptive system A system which can adapt intelligently ▪ Consist of many independent agents that interact with one another ▪ Their combined behaviour gives risesto complex adaptive phenomena ▪ Self-organize, no overall authority that direct how the independent agent act COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM ▪ Organization that Composed of a large number of self-organizing component, Seeks to maximize its own specific goals Operate according to the rule & contect of relationships with other component & external world Take from environment, transform it into higher value outputs COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM ▪ Key process in ICAS model Understanding Creating new ideas Solving problems Making decisions Take action to achieve desired results ▪ Emphasize on individual knowledge worker with their competency, capacity, & learning ▪ Leverage thru multiple networks COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM 8 emergent characteristic 1. Organizational intelligent 2. Shared purpose 3. Selectivity 4. Optimum complexity 5. Permeable boundaries 6. Knowledge centricity 7. Flow 8. Multidimensionality COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM The emergent characteristic ▪ Result of nonlinear interactions, synergitic interaction, & self-organizing system ▪ Serve to endow the organizations with internal capability to deal with the future unanticipated environment yet to be encountered KNOWLEDGE CREATING/SHARING ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ How you prepare your breakfast? The best way to take a picture How’s your study style What is your secret recipe to become a well known student in the entire campus CONCLUSION ▪ KM encompass data, information, & knowledge (tacit & explicit) ▪ Model Krogh & Roos used organizational epistemology approach & emphasize that knowledge resides in the mind of individual and in relation with others ▪ Nonaka & Takeuchi focus on knowledge spiral that explain the transformation of tacit into explicit, then back again to tacit as the basis of innovation & learning ▪ Choo & Weick’s sense making approach focus on how information element fed into organization thru sense making, knowledge creating, & decision making
