View Article  Recent Publications

Uncovering a KMSD Approach from Practice (see Attachment)

In our recent article (to be published in eJKM 2009), we present a knowledge management systems development (KMSD) approach grounded in practice. The approach was uncovered using Action Research iteratice cycles to address actual business challenges faced by organizations and is based on 3 interacting aspects:

(1) envisioning knowledge work behaviour: analyse challenges and opportunities in an organization’s current situation and an improved situation is envisioned to uncover KM related concepts

(2) design of KM system (KMS):  produce a logical design of the organizational KMS using knowledge entities, knowledge flows and knowledge interfaces

(3) exploring technology options for supporting the KMS: introduce appropriate IT into KMS design, integrating organizational, social and technological aspects of the system

This paper introduces the approach and how it emerged from both practical and theoretical investigation.

Reference:

Moteleb, A. & Woodman, M. (2009), ‘Uncovering a KMSD Approach from Practice’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (eJKM) [Accepted – to be published 2009]

1 Attachments
View Article  my Work
 

What do I do?

When I was asked this question once before, I answered “I am a systems architect”. The person asking the question repeated the question clarifying that the question was about what I do and not what I am. I never thought about it in this way before but my answer now would be: “I design and research state of the art learning & knowledge work spaces in organizations”.

 

What is my motivation?

My motivation stems from an interest in both the research and the development of organizational learning & knowledge work spaces and systems to address complex & irregular challenges caused by their continuously changing environment. These are referred to as Knowledge Management Systems (KMS).

In practice, I am aspired by enabling organizations devise ways to develop KMS that addresses actual challenges and that can evolve with change in their environment.

In research, my work is underpinned by the many calls in the Knowledge Management (KM) literature and relevant work for empirical research into ways to develop effective KMS in organizations.

 

What is my strategy?

My strategy is to work together with organizations to create & nurture learning & knowledge work spaces and systems, and in so doing to capture, evaluate and refine concepts in Knowledge Management Systems Development (KMSD). This strategy is based on using iterative action research cycles and hence has been evolving with time.

 

What has been achieved?

The biggest achievement so far is a KMSD manifesto for organizations. This manifesto assists organizations throughout the continuous process of developing, evaluating and refining their KMS. The manifesto is based on action research iterative cycles and also contains a KMS architecture and KMSD methodology.

View Article  Polymorphic Nature of Knowledge

In this paper we concluded that "Knowledge is a polymorphic concept" (Moteleb & Bakry 2004). Knowledge, information, and data are different facets to the same thing. One thing could mean data in a certain context and the same thing could mean information or knowledge in different contexts.

We also emphasised the importance of knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation. "KMS in organisations need to maintain a balance between knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation" because organisations which are engaging in knowledge exploration alone typically suffer from the fact it never gains the returns on its knowledge, and organisations which are engaging in knowledge exploration alone ordinarily suffer from obsolescence (Moteleb & Bakry 2004).  Knowledge exploration includes activities such as research and development, risk taking, experimentation, discovery, innovation (De Pablos 2002), and can be created inductively or deductively, while knowledge exploitation includes activities such as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution (De Pablos 2002), and can be created through conversions between tacit and explicit knowledge.

We then proposed a generic model for knowledge creation - as depicted in the figure below - to allow organisations to engage in both knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation concurrently, which - in our view complements the SECI model of Nonaka. Yet this model needs to be empirically evaluated in organisations.

You can access the full paper on CISTM 2004

 

References:

De Pablos P. O. (2002), “Knowledge management and organizational learning: typologies of knowledge strategies in the Spanish manufacturing industry from 1995 to 1999”, Journal of Knowledge Management Vol. 6 No. 1, 2002 pp. 52-62

 

Moteleb A. & Bakry, W., (2004), ‘Polymorphic Nature of Knowledge: Towards a knowledge creation model’. Proceedings of the conference of Information Science, Technology and Management (CISTM2004)Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, USA: Oxford University Press

Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995), “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, USA: Oxford University Press

perspective ...

This space is to Xplore together .. our different perspectives ...

This Month
March 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Year Archive
Search
Search all blogs