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.