What is Knowledge Management

By going through the literature, it became clear that there is no consensus on a single definition of knowledge management (KM), different authors seem to have very different perspectives on what constitutes KM.

Wilson (2002) defined knowledge as the mental processes that are carried out in the mind which become information once they are expressed. Therefore, in his opinion, knowledge cannot exist outside the brain, and therefore cannot be managed. He reviewed all journal papers from The Web of Science between 1981 and 2002, which contained KM in the title, and several consultancy and business school views of KM and concluded that they were all describing different types of information systems which had been renamed to include knowledge.

This is a very controversial definition by Wilson, knowledge is not just processes carried out subconsciously by the mind, it must also include knowledge that we know we have and can choose to disseminate to others.
Call (2005) state that IBM, Lotus and Microsoft use more technical definitions, for example he cites Gates (1999) as viewing KM as “...nothing more than managing information flow: getting the right information to the people who need it so that they can act on it quickly”.

This is a very narrow definition, as increasingly KM is considered more than just information and although it can be communicated by technology, there are other social method which can also be used to communicate it. While there are some that believe that KM should be technology based, others believe that KM does not have to be based on technology.

Wiig (1997) acknowledged that managers have very differing view about KM and stated that “the overall purpose of KM is to maximise the enterprise’s knowledge related effectiveness”. He put forward 4 areas of KM emphasis.
Rowley (1999) cited Davenport et al. (1998) as having identified 4 types of KM project objectives. These objectives broadly covered the same areas as Wiig’s emphasis. Rowley’s own definition of KM is very broad and aims to cover all the objectives identified by Davenport. Rowley noted that some authors have taken a more practical view and cited Galagan (1997) as proposing a list of KM processes. This list seems to encompass all the emphasis and objectives identified by Wiig and Davenport but gives them a more practical bias.

The above provide a very comprehensive overview for KM and seem to cover most aspects of it. However, it would be important to include two more processes, (identification and extension); identification is required as organisations need to know where their knowledge is and extension of previous knowledge is needed as most if not all knowledge is derived from knowledge that we already have.

There is a wealth of literature on KM frameworks which are used to classify and understand KM phenomena. Holsapple (1999) compared 10 KM frameworks and classified them into two categories descriptive and presecriptive frameworks. They concluded that they all had differing perspectives and methodologies and that none of them subsumed any other.

Life Cycles, for example Binney (2001), Lee and Hong (2006), are another technique used by some authors to model the development of KM. Binney (2001) uses a four stages lifecycle while Lee and Hong (2006) use a six stages lifecycle. These broadly speaking use similar stages as those identified by Wigg and Davenport but tend to consider KM as a linear sequence of event.

In conclusion, there is not a common agreed definition for KM; it can mean different things within different organisations and depends on the organisation’s perceptions, needs and expertise.

Practical Examples

Example 1: An example of KM that uses codified knowledge as well as explicit and tacit knowledge is given below.
The university has a computer system (MISIS) which stores information about students. At the end of the year, staff enter the grades for their own modules and admin staff enter information about students deferrals and extenuating circumstances. MISIS then produces reports which include the grades for each module along with summary statistics (Explicit knowledge). At the first level exam board, the grades for each module are considered and judgements are made about the grades for that module. Now, the explicit knowledge from the reports is combined with tacit knowledge from the staff present to confirm the grades and discuss problems with a particular module. MISIS is then updated and produces a second set of reports for finalists which include the grade profile for each students, any extenuating circumstances and suggestions for degree classification. At the Finalists board, staff use the MISIS reports as well as minutes from previous finalists boards to decide what degree classification a students should be awarded, based on their grade profile, extenuating circumstances and the personal knowledge that staff have about that student. Again, explicit knowledge is combined with tacit knowledge to confirm each student’s degree classification. During the board, any decision to up-grade a student’s degree classification and the grounds on which this decision was taken are recorded in the boards minutes for use in future finalist’s boards.

Example 2: An example of KM that does not use technology is given below.
Most staff at the university belong to a research group related to their research interest. These groups meet regularly to allow members to discuss their research topics. These meetings allow staff to discuss their current research, issues and problems they are having as well as find out what research other members are involved in. At some of these meetings, staff review each others research proposals in which they use a combination of their knowledge about the proposal topic, knowledge about funding criteria and knowledge of their own experiences of previously successful proposals.

Reflections and personal learning

This week my group, The Eagles, met after the morning lab session, to discuss our understanding of KM. Using a flip chart as an aid, we each gave our definition of KM and outlined what it meant to us. It very quickly became clear that we each had different views on KM, which seemed to relate to our different backgrounds. After further discussion, we realised that although our perceptions of KM overlapped in some places, we could not agree on a single definition, everybody’s definitions seem plausible when related to different organisations. I found this form of discussion very revealing and useful, as it allowed me to increase my understanding of KM.
In the workshop session in the afternoon, the module tutor asked the 6 other groups to debate KM in pairs. Again, it was quickly evident that it was very difficult to find a single definition.
I found the debates very interesting and a useful tool for learning as it forced the individual groups to defend their understanding of KM. However, on occasions the debates turned into arguments between a few members of each group and had the potential to digress away from the subject. This was a negative side to the debates as it stopped group members having different opinions. I found this a very useful tool to aid learning among groups of individuals but I realised that it would need to be moderated carefully to allow all group members to gain something positive from the experience.


References:
Binney D, (2001) “The knowledge management spectrum – understanding the KM landscape”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 33-42
Call D. (2005), “Knowledge Management – not rocket science”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 19 - 30
Davenport, T.H and L. Prusak, (1998) , “Working Knowledge: Managing What Your Organisation Knows”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Galagan, P. (1997), “Smart companies (knowledge management)”, Training and Development, Vol. 51 , No. 12, pp. 20-24
Gates, B. (1999), Business @ the Speed of Thought: Using a Digital Nervous System, Warner Books, New York, NY, pp. 238 - 239
Hicks, R. C. (2006), “The five tier knowledge management hierarchy”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 19 – 31
Holsapple, C.W.and K.D. Joshi, (1999), “Description and Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management Frameworks” Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science
Lee, S. M., S. Hong (2002) “An enterprise-wide knowledge management system infrastructure”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 102, No.1, pp. 17-25
Rowley, J. (1999) “What is knowledge management”, Library Management, vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 416-420
Wiig, K. M. (1997) “Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 6 - 14
Wilson, T.D. (2002) “The nonsense of ‘knowledge management”, Information Research, Vol. 8, No. 1. Pp. 1-54