Knowledge Map

This link is a knowledge map in my group : 

click here

This link is a knowledge map in my class :

click here

Knowledge Management (KM) Processes in Organizations - Chapter 6 -

Chapter 6

Knowledge Management In Practice

There are three types of ‘knowledge management’ processes that are generally considered to be essential: finding or uncovering knowledge [Ehrlich, K., 2003, Learn, L., 2002, Zack,M., 1999], sharing knowledge [Ackerman et al., 2003], and the development of new knowledge [Argyris and Schon, 1978, 1996, Baumard, P., 1999, Harvard Business Review, 1998]. 

6.1 KM In Practice – Processes 

A very useful way of thinking is to conceptualize KMas the actualization of what Powell,T. [2001a] calls the “Knowledge Value Chain.” 

6.1.1 Finding Information And Knowledge 

Finding information and knowledge refers to processes that allow organizations to make sense and make use of data, information, and knowledge objects that may be present but are not codified, analyzed, nor accessible to members. 

Knowledge exists in all organizations, but all knowledge may not be explicit. Trends can be examined and analyzed so that new understandings of procurement practices and purchasing can be made explicit. The knowledge that once existed only within one person can be used (at least to some degree) by others who find it represented, codified, and organized in electronic form. 

One aspect of finding and dissemination of information is the organization of knowledge objects so that they can be found easily. 

6.1.2 Sharing Information And Knowledge 

Sharing refers to the willingness and ability of the knowledgeable to share what they know to help others expand their own learning and knowing. Chait, L. [2008] makes a very important point about the readiness of people to share knowledge. He found that the principal reason for reluctance on the part of key players to put their knowledge into a lessons learned database was a concern that the lesson learned might be misapplied if the congruence, or the lack of, between the context of the area from which the lesson was derived and the context of the intended application area was not well understood. 

6.1.3 Development Of Knowledge 

Knowledge development takes place when individuals work to create new understandings, innovations, and a synthesis of what is known already together with newly acquired information or knowledge. Although individuals can intentionally develop their own knowledge through seeking opportunities to be creative and learn, the development of knowledge is often a social process, such as meeting, teleconference, and team think tank sessions all serve to help workers develop knowledge together can encourage the development of new knowledge. 

6.2 KM In Practice - Procedures And Practices 

6.2.1 Knowledge Audit 

An audit answers the questions of what information and knowledge exists in the organization and where is it?, Who maintains it?, Who has access to it?, etc. 

Auditing as it was then defined focused primarily on what data was formally captured in documents and databases. Tacit or implicit information was not ignored, the emphasis was very much upon explicit captured data and information. 

Some of the reasons for and benefits of an information audit include: 

First of course, the elucidation of what information the organization possesses: where it is located? how is it organized? how can it be accessed? who is responsible for it? etc

In addition:

- The identification of duplicate or partially duplicated information and information gathering and maintenance, with the potential realization of cost savings.

- The identification of information being gathered and maintained that is no longer salient or necessary, with the potential realization of cost savings.

Two addition above, more persuasive in selling the need, or opportunity, for an information audit, to management than is the argument for greater and better access, which in the long run is really the most compelling reason.

Clearly, the techniques used in creating a knowledge audit or knowledge map are those borrowed from social network analysis and anthropology, and appropriately so, since Knowledge Management is interdisciplinary by nature, spanning boundaries of thought and interests. 

6.2.2 Tags,Taxonomies,And Content Management 

The tag and taxonomy stage of KM consists primarily of assembling various information resources in some sort of portal-like environment and making them available to the organization. 

This can include internally generated information, including lessons learned databases and expertise locators, as well as external information, the open web and also deep web information subscribed to by the organization. 

Increased use of social media within the organization has expanded the domain of information to be managed still further. This massive increase in information interaction, including use of digitized video and audio and the organization’s own web pages has resulted in the development of what is a major subfield within KM, that of “Content Management” or “Enterprise Content Management.” The area is also frequently labeled as CMS,Content Management Systems. 

The area of managing content is still in its early days and will clearly expand and develop as organizations see the need for preserving, organizing, and re-using knowledge objects. 

6.2.3 Lessons Learned Databases 

Lessons Learned databases are databases that attempt to capture and to make accessible knowledge that has been operationally obtained and typically would not have been captured in a fixed medium (to use copyright terminology). 

The lessons learned concept or practice is one that might be described as having been birthed by KM, as there is very little in the way of a direct antecedent.

      Best practices      --------------------->>          Lesson learned

Best practices --> seemed too restrictive and could be interpreted as meaning there was only one best practice in a situation.
Lesson learned --> was broader and more inclusive.

Most successful lessons learned implementations have concluded that such a system needs to be monitored and that there needs to be a vetting and approval mechanism before items are mounted as lessons learned. Most successful lessons learned systems have an active weeding or stratification process. Without a clearly designed process for weeding, the proportion of new and crisp items inevitably declines, the system begins to look stale, and usage and utility falls.

6.2.4 Expertise Location

The basic function of an expertise locator system is straightforward, it is to identify and locate those persons within an organization who have expertise in a particular area. Such systems were commonly known as “Yellow Page” systems in the early days of KM.
Expertise location systems are another aspect of KM that certainly predates KM thinking.
There are now 3 areas which typically supply data for an expertise locator system, employee resumes, employee self identification of areas of expertise, typically by being requested to fill out a form online, or by algorithmic analysis of electronic communications from and to the employee.

The latter approach is typically based on email traffic, but it can include other social networking electronic communications such as Twitter and Facebook.

Commercial packages to match queries with expertise are available. Most of them have load-balancing schemes so as not to overload any particular expert.


6.2.5 Communities Of Practice (COPS)

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are groups of individuals with shared interests that come together in person or virtually to tell stories, discuss best practices, and talk over lessons learned [Wenger, E., 1998a,Wenger and Snyder, 1999]. In an information society where knowledge is considered an important resource for individuals and organizations, processes to share knowledge should be considered integral to any strategic or tactical plan.


In the context of KM, CoPs are generally understood to mean electronically linked communities. The organization and maintenance of CoPs is not a simple and easy undertaking. As Durham, M. [2004] points out, there are several key roles to be filled, which she describes as manager, moderator, and thought leader.


6.3 Processes,Procedures,And Practices Matrix

Processes and Procedures & Practices Matrix


Almost everything one does in KM is designed to help find information and knowledge.However, if we assume that the main goal of KMis to share knowledge and even more importantly to develop new knowledge, then the Knowledge Audit and the Tags, Taxonomies and Content Management stages are the underpinnings and the tools. It is the knowledge sharing and knowledge creation of one on one communications enabled by expertise locators, and the communal sharing and creation of knowledge enabled by communities of practice toward which KM development should be aimed.

Knowledge Management (KM) Processes in Organizations - Chapter 5 -

Chapter 5

Knowledge "Acts"

5.1 Question Asking And Answering

Question asking and answering is a foundational process by which what people know tacitly becomes expressed, and hence, externalized as knowledge. 

Hirschheim et al. [1995] describe types of speech acts that pertain to aspects of either Knowledge Management (KM), or Information Management (IM). 

They reason that IM addresses questions such as ‘Where,’ ‘Who,’ ‘When,’ and ‘What,’ while KM targets problems involving dynamic complexity, addressing solutions to questions such as ‘How’ and ‘Why.’ 

What-if questions, primarily seen in the decision making domain, will likely call for exhaustion of all possible scenarios in order to arrive at any “best” alternative. 

Similar to decision support processes and systems, exercises in “what –if ” questions and creating possible scenarios can serve individuals to use existing knowledge and create new knowledge. 

5.2 Posting Content To Repositories 

O’Dell and Jackson [1998] point out the importance of frameworks for classifying information. For many professionals who are used to online communication and accessing databases and discussion lists, we could argue that it is quicker and easier for the professionals to make the contribution themselves. 

The task of entering content into the system should be done by specially appointed people since busy professionals rarely have the time to enter a practice into the database unless it is their job. 

Nick et al. [2001], noting the importance of learning by experience, point out that experience bases can be developed using case-based reasoning as the underlying concept. However, experience repositories require continuous maintenance and updating in order to handle continuous streams of experience. 

Selvin and Buckingham [2002] describe a tool, Compendium, that claims to support rapid knowledge construction. 

The product supports both the construction of knowledge as content, or as the collaborative, negotiated, co-constructed approach to verifying and validating content, essentially accommodating both the content and process views of knowledge construction. 

Richter et al. [2004] describe a functionally similar tool, TAGGER, designed and operationalized as allowing knowledge acquisition discussions to be “tagged” in real time with the relevant concepts so as to lessen the burden on documentation. 

Increases for the importance of making knowledge explicit, more and more products will appear to help with creating knowledge bases and decision recommendations, but it is a mindset open to using, sharing, and creating knowledge that will make a difference in creating an organizational knowledge culture. 

5.3 (Re) Using Knowledge 

Desouza et al. [2006] assert that the decision to consume knowledge can be framed as a problem of risk evaluation, with perceived complexity and relative advantage being identified as factors relating to intentions to “consume” knowledge. the knowledge consumer is able to reasonably frame his or her knowledge needs. 

Belkin et al. [1982] found that during problem articulation, users have anomalous states of knowledge, and they may not be able to specify their information needs accurately. 

McMahon et al. [2004], studying team work involving engineering design, suggest that both codification and personalization approaches to knowledge reuse are relevant. 

The notion of information value, allowing for the matching of information to the knowledge needs of the user. 

The form in which knowledge is captured has to be informed by the eventual application, or reuse of the content. 

5.4 Knowledge-Based Decision Making 

Choo, C. [2002] suggests that decision making activity requires the establishment of shared meanings and the assumption of prior knowledge. 

Shared meanings and purposes as well as new knowledge and capabilities, converge on decision making as the activity leading to the selection and initiation of action. 

Information used in one activity that results in new knowledge will, in turn, be used to guide selection of alternatives in future tasks that involve decision making. 

Support for such scenario predicting questions will demand rich context upon which to apply knowledge of the past and the present to bear on the problem or situation at hand.We would like to refocus the discussion of knowledge management strategy to the demands of complex, dynamic, contextual, and emergent decision processes.

Knowledge Management (KM) Processes in Organizations - Chapter 4 -

Chapter 4

Conceptualizing Knowledge Emergence 

4.1 Gatekeepers, Information, Stars, And Boundary Spanners

Thomas J. Allen coined the term ‘Gatekeeper’ to describe the information flow stars that he discovered, the heavily connected nodes in the information flow pattern. The reason that he chose that term was that much of the development and project work that he investigated was classified military work, where there seemed to be something of a paradox. 

Allen himself, in fact, in developing and explicating the role of gatekeepers introduces and explains his gatekeepers with the term “sociometric stars.” “Information stars” a term emerging later [Tushman and Scanlan, 1981a,b], is, however, a more apt description, one that brings to mind more of the multiple roles and functions that such persons perform. 

The “information stars” were central to information flow both within the organization at large, and within their project or projects. The characteristics that distinguished these stars were:

- extensive communication with their field outside of the organization 

- greater perusal of information sources, journals, etc., information mavens 

- a high degree of connectedness with other information stars, one can infer that their utility was not just having more information at their fingertips, but knowing to whom to turn within the organization for further information 

- an above average degree of formal education compared to their project teammates 

These characteristics of information stars were further corroborated by Mondschein, L. [1990] in a study of R&D activities across several industries. 

The information flow structure was not at all closely related to the formal organizational structure, and that the information stars did not map onto any consistent pattern of organizational placement or level. The relationship between formal organizational structure and the information flow structure also seems to be in part a function of the larger corporate culture. 

Tushman, M. [1977], Tushman and Scanlan [1981a,b] introduced and added the concept of “boundary spanning” or boundary spanner to describe verymuch the same phenomenon that Allen described as gatekeeping. He extended Allen’s work by distinguishing between two types of communication stars, “internal communication stars” and “external communication stars,” and defining boundary spanners as those who were both internal and external communication stars. The emphasis is clearly directed to projects and project management, and the “take home” theme is that boundary spanners should be recognized, utilized, and nurtured for facilitating project success. 

In the context of KM, this tradition relates very directly to the development of Communities of Practice (CoP). Given the relative non-alignment of organizational structure and information flowand sharing,CoPs can be seen as the setting up of an alternative structure to facilitate information flow and sharing. 

4.2 Research Productivity And Knowledge

The ‘Gatekeepers, Information Stars & Boundary Spanner’ tradition is very consistent with a substantial body of work studying research productivity. 

The more productive companies were characterized by: 

- A relatively egalitarian managerial structure with unobtrusive status indicators in the R&D environment, 

- Less concern with protecting proprietary information, 

- Greater openness to outside information, greater use of their libraries and information centers, specifically, greater attendance by employees at professional meetings, 

- Greater information systems development effort, 

- Greater end-user use of information systems and more encouragement of browsing and serendipity. Increased time spent browsing and keeping abreast,

- Greater technical and subject sophistication of the information services staff. 

4.3 Lack Of Recognition Of These Findings In The Business Community 

A subset of an even larger problem - the lack of recognition of or even obtuseness to the importance of information and information related managerial actions in the business community. 

The three most important characteristics are all related to the information environment and information flow – specifically: 

1) easy access to information by individuals; 

2) free flow of information both into and out of the organizations; 

3)rewards for sharing, seeking, and using “new” externally developed information sources. 

Not only did information related management behavior tend strongly to discriminate between “high-performance” and “low-performance” companies, but also that none of the non information related management behaviors measured had any discriminatory value. 

Here, given the inability to find any significance for other managerial factors, the failure to remark upon the importance of information and knowledge factors can truly be described as remarkable. 

4.4 Community-Based Models 

An abundance of KM strategies in the category of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). While technology may provide the tools for interaction and communication, the application of technology alone may not be a sufficient condition for sustaining the creation and sharing of knowledge. 

A lack of key words,index terms, or metadata on transcriptions and other knowledge aids means that the embedded knowledge can be lost to those who wish to re-use the saved text. 

Group Decision Support Systems (GDSSs) were originally conceived of as collaborative tools where groups came together, participated in brainstorming and then, through human facilitation, voted on items and issues important to the organization. 

Advantage of Group Decision Support Systems : 

- allowed for anonymous voting that moved decisions along rapidly by prioritizing topics more easily than trying to do so without the system’s assistance. Participants’ knowledge and experience contributed to the democratic process. 

- in general, is the ability for each person to speak (through entering opinions via a keypad, or original ideas via a keyboard) anonymously without fear of being politically incorrect or worrying about speaking in opposition to the manager. 

- is able to calculate the votes and display them graphically, so that an individual attending the meeting can see if she or he were an outlier on certain issues or to determine where his or her vote stood as compared with peers. 

- work well in a face-to-face situation where immediate feedback can be given and displayed. 

The GDSS has not migrated easily to theWeb, however, some web-based systems are available and have adapted to an asynchronous situation. The ability for groups to share knowledge and make decisions using decision technology tools is a beneficial way to combine human know-how and experience with database and display systems. 

Generic Decision Support Systems (DSS) that act more like expert systems with the added feature of suggesting decision options are well suited to the Web, and they are proliferating as the Web becomes the ubiquitous information and communication platform for information storage and retrieval, and for interaction as well. 

4.5 Repository Model 

The knowledge management repository, a space to store and retrieve knowledge objects has long been a standard in KMprograms. It is a model that emphasizes the creation of quality knowledge content in online repositories with re-use as a goal. 

Financial firms, IT departments, law firms and others who depend on frequently updated information and new legislative materials are just a few types of organizations that can make good use of the repository and re-use model. 

4.6 Activity-Based Models 

There has been significant work done in terms of Information Systems support for the coordination of work [Winograd,T., 1988], the next logical progression would be to link knowledge production and capture with work processes. 

Based on such a historical-cultural perspective of activity, Hasan, H. [2003] proposed rudiments of a KM system influenced by activity-based models that would link work activities with people and content. 

Incorporating workflow support with a knowledge repository, Kwan and Balasubramanian [2003] take the notion a step further; they propose the design of a KM system they call Knowledge Scope that provides integrated workflow support to capture and retrieve knowledge as an organizational process within the context it is created and used. 

They also propose a meta-model knowledge structure called Knowledge-In-Context that specifies relationships among processes. The model was implemented with limited workflow functions at a global telecommunications company. While repositories and workflow support have largely developed with limited integration, designs such as this, grounded in case implementations, provide some empirical validity as to the appropriateness and value of incorporating activity as context for knowledge reuse.