Knowledge Management Models

Knowledge Management (KM) models can basically be split into two types, Epistemological models which focus on the knowledge and how it can be decomposed but ignore relationship or flows of knowledge and Ontological models which concentrate on the relationship and flows of knowledge but treat knowledge as a black-box. McAdam et al (1999) identify a third type of model, Intellectual Capital models which view knowledge as an asset.

Nonaka’s SEDI model (1991) is an example of an epistemological model as it uses tacit and explicit knowledge in four different ways to create knowledge within an organisation. McAdam et al (1999) criticism of this model concludes that the tacit and explicit categorisation is limited as it does not include for example P (programmable) and Q (questioning insight) knowledge identified by McLoughlin (1993) and that this categorisation is too mechanistic.

While it is understandable that McAdam et al view this categorisation as too mechanistic, P and Q knowledge is included in the model as P and Q knowledge are just subcategories of explicit and tacit knowledge respectively.
However, it seems that the SEDI model is too specialised; it seems to concentrate on transferring knowledge between individuals rather than across the whole organisation and also does not consider external influences from outside the organisation.

Demerest (1997) adaption of Clark’s (1989) model is an example of an ontological model. This model concentrates on the flow of knowledge from Construction, through Embodiment, and Dissemination to Use. It also shows other recursive flows which take place. The model does not distinguish between different types of knowledge and therefore is consistent with both explicit and tacit knowledge.

McAdam et al (1999) think that the model implies that the recursive flows of knowledge are less important than the main flows, which in turn implies that the knowledge flows are too mechanistic. They also note that the Use process only includes organisational output and not external output.

McAdam et al (1999) extend this model by adding more recursive knowledge flows and including both social and scientific constructed knowledge as separate inputs and business benefits and employee emancipation as outputs.
McAdam’s modified version of Demerest model is a more balanced model as it tries to combine both knowledge flow with the different knowledge categories. However, it still implies that the main flow of knowledge is sequential from Creation through to Use. The flows of knowledge are much more intertwined than that and the recursive flows identified should be more important.

In conclusion, there are many different KM models, a few of which were discussed above. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages and could be successfully applied in an organisation given the appropriate context. However, KM models should be treated as an aid to introducing KM into an organisation rather than a pre-defined method.


 
Practical examples
Example 1: Applying the SEDI model to a university research group.
The university research group example used in the previous article lends itself to an epistemological type model as the knowledge transfer is between tacit and explicit knowledge. An example of Nonaka’s SEDI model being applied is given below.
Socialisation

Discussions.
Debates.
Verbal Presentations.

Externalisation

Research Proposals.
Research Papers.
Presentation Slides.
PhD thesis.

Internalisation

Analysing research paper.
Reading journal articles.
Reading previous research proposals.

Combination

Research Data.
Results of Experiments
Survey Results
Assessment Criteria


Example 2: Applying McAdam’s modified version of Demerest to the degree classification process.
The degree classification process lends itself to an ontological type models as the flows of data are more important. An example is given below (for simplicity I have only included the main data flows):


DIAGRAM


 
Reflections and personal learning

In week 1 of this module we were asked to set up a learning journal as a blog. Each week we had to publish articles relating to that weeks research topic and also to comment on other people’s blog articles. In week 1, I was very sceptical of the use of a blog as an aid to learning and found it very difficult to both publish and comment on a blog. However, over the last four week I have gradually learnt that blogs can be a good way to share knowledge between groups of people with similar interests. By publishing your own articles you formalise your own thoughts and understanding of the topic area, and then by reading and commenting on others blogs your knowledge and understanding of the topic area increases.

This week we were asked to evaluate both our own use and our organisations use of blogs and comments. My group evaluated the group as a whole, whereas other groups took a more individual approach. The outcome of the discussions helped me formalise what constitutes a good blog as well as a good comment.

References:

Clarke, P. N. Staunton, (1989), Innovation in Technology and Organisation, Routledge, London.

Demerest, M. (1997), ``Understanding knowledge management'', Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 374-84.

McAdam, R. S. McCreedy, (1999) “A critical review of knowledge management models”, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 6, No. 3 pp. 91 – 100

McLoughlin, H. R. Thorpe, (1993), ``Action learning : a paradigm in emergence: the problems facing a challenge to traditional management education and development'', British Journal of Management, Vol. 4, pp. 19-27.

Nonaka, I. K. Takeuchi (1991), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69, No. 6 pp 96-104