Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS KM?
1.
Davenport,T. (1994) tells about
KM movement :
“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 )
2. 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 ).
3. McInerney, C. [2002] is that “KM is an effort to increase useful knowledge
within the organization. Ways to do this include encouraging communication, offering opportunities
to learn, and promoting the sharing of appropriate knowledge objects or
artifacts.”
( This definition
emphasizes the interactive aspect of KM, that is, knowledge sharing by people
rather than the common understanding of knowledge management as a system
used to organize what we might call ‘knowledge objects.’ )
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.
Another way to understand KM may be to examine its history and
development.
THE HISTORY AND
DEVELOPMENT OF KM
In the article entitled “Where Did Knowledge Management Come From”
written in 1999, Prusak states that KM first appeared “about seven years ago,” i.e., in
1992, and describes a conference in Boston in 1993 as “a good milestone to mark the
beginning of the knowledge management time-line” [Prusak, L., 1999]
The earliest instances of KM, as the term is understood today,
derive from the consulting world, from which the principles of KM eventually spread to other
disciplines. The consulting firms quickly realized the potential of the Intranet
flavor of the Internet for linking together their own geographically dispersed
knowledge based organizations. They then understood that the expertise they had
gained was a product that could be sold to other organizations. That product
needed a name, and the name chosen, or at least arrived at, was Knowledge
Management.
In his article the origins of KM, Prusak in fact, felt it appropriate to say “some
skeptics may believe that consultants developed knowledge management to replace declining
revenues from the waning re-engineering movement” [Prusak, L., 1999]. The two enthusiasms, KM
and re-engineering, are related in that both were driven by increased ICT (Information and
Communication Technologies) capabilities. However, the timing,
though convenient for the consulting firms, was driven not by their convenience,
but by the straightforward dynamics of ICT capability growth.
KM was dependent upon the appearance of the Internet, while pre
internet, ICT already enabled the major restructuring of an organization’s work
flows and processes. In a sense, KM also has roots in the implementation of Supply
Chain Management (SCM) software and business process reengineering (BPR) as
well as the more recent development of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).
IT development has always displayed a pattern, of growth from more structured data to less
tractable, less well structured, or comparatively unstructured data. SCM & BPR & ERP to KM, represent a logical and
predictable progression toward unstructured information and knowledge.
Leistner says that knowledge must be connected with people to be a viable
term Koenig,M, KM has two parents, the enthusiasm for and the
appreciation of intellectual capital, and the development of the Internet and
its offspring, intranets and extranets.
“Intellectual Capital” representing the awareness that as
PeterDrucker [Hibbard, J., 1997, p. 46] put it:
We now know that the source of wealth is something, specifically
human knowledge. If we apply knowledge to tasks that we obviously know how to do, we
call it productivity.
If we apply knowledge to tasks that are new and different, we call
it innovation. Only knowledge allows us to achieve those two goals.
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL
DEVELOPS AND DECLINES
A pioneer in the Intellectual Capital (IC) field was Karl-Eric
Sveiby [Sveiby, K., 1989, 1997, 2001], whose book The Invisible Balance Sheet was a key work in the
development of thinking about Intellectual Capital.From this early writing,
Sveiby’s ideas developed smoothly and rapidly into KM.
The work of Buckman, R. [2004] at BuckmanLaboratories and Hubert
St.Onge [Chatzkel, J.,2000] at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and
Clarica Insurance were key implementations in operationalizing the
concept and in popularizing IC. Also very important was the Stewart,T. [1994] article in Fortune
magazine, “Intellectual Capital, Your Company’s Most Valuable Asset.”
THE INTERNET EMERGES
As the Internet emerged, the business world realized that the
Internet could be used to link an
organization together. This was the take off point for large scale
recognition of KMas an important innovation, and it was the stimulus for its
development [Koenig,M., 1996, 1998].
THE STAGES OF KM DEVELOPMENT
The Three Stages of KM
STAGE I “By the Internet out of Intellectual Capital”
Information Technology
Intellectual Capital
The Internet (including intranets, extranets, etc.)
Key Phrases: “best practices,” later replaced by the more politic “lessons
learned”
STAGE II Human and cultural dimensions, the HR, Human Relations
stage
Communities of Practice
Organizational Culture
The Learning Organization (Senge), and
Tacit Knowledge (Nonaka) incorporated into KM
Key Phrase: “communities of practice”
STAGE III Content and Retrievability
Structuring content and assigning descriptors (index terms)
Key Phrases: “ content management” and “taxonomies”
STAGE IV ? Access to External Information
Emphases upon External Information and the recognition of the
Importance of Context
Key Terms: “context” and “extranet”
SUPPLEMENTARY WAYS OF LOOKING AT KM
THE FOREST AND THE TREES
A forest of information
and knowledge management, whose scope and importance we are still coming to recognize.
Furthermore, it is beginning to appear that KM is graduating from being just
one of many names on that list, to now becoming the name for that forest of
all the trees of information and knowledge management.
The more likely explanation is that of the forests and the trees,
the forest being that community of trees listed above that all deal significantly
with information and knowledge management. The forest is certainly not
going away, nor will it remain static, new trees will emerge, but KM is morphing and expanding
in scope to be the name of that forest. We have always had
trouble defining KM, and now we have another definition, or more exactly a new metaphor, KM
is the name for that newly recognized forest of all the trees of information
and knowledge management.
KM AS THE EXTENSION OF THE
SUCCESSFUL R&D ENVIRONMENT
A final way to view KM is to observe KM as the movement to replicate the
information environment known to be conducive to successful R&D- rich, deep, and
open communication and information access - and deploy it
broadly across the firm.
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.