Xplore

on KMS - Alavi & Leidner

Aboubakr A. Moteleb — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:43:43 +0100

This article reviews & reflects on KMS by Alavi & Leidner (1999a, 1999b & 2001)

Knowledge Based View: Why this sudden interest in Organizational Knowledge and Knowledge Management?

Alavi and Leidner (2001) argue that recent interest in organizational knowledge and KM is caused by (a) shift to information age with rapid advancement in IT and (b) shift in organizational theory and praxis to consider knowledge as the primary source of economic growth manifested in new thinking and practice in the organization (e.g. benchmarking, knowledge audits, best practice transfer, and employee development "The emergent patterns of literature and research as well as practice in the field imply the central role of knowledge as the essence of the firm" (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Extending the resource-based theory (RBV) of the firm (Penrose 1959; Barney 1991; Conner 1991; Wernerfelt 1984, cited in Alavi & Leidner 2001), a knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm has recently emerged in the strategic management literature (Wilson 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Spender 1996; Cole 1998, cited in Alavi & Leidner 2001)

It is important to note however that general tendency in literature that say KMS should focus on capturing, codifying and transferring existing knowledge miss the essence of knowledge management. As Alavi and Leidner (2001) even put it: "it is less the knowledge existing at any given time per se, than the firm’s ability to effectively apply the existing knowledge and create new knowledge, that forms the basis for achieving competitive advantage from knowledge-based assets". This is also similar to what Penrose's (1959, cited in Alavi & Leidner 2001) same argument about resources in general in RBV: "it is not so much the tangible resources (e.g., capital and facilities) per se that creates the firm’s competitive advantage, but the services rendered by those resources".

Instead, therefore KMS should focus on creating settings that enable and encourage the application of existing knowledge to create competitive advantage. The implication for KMSD is that early stages of developing KMS should focus on business issues in the organization that create this competitive advantage.

The argument of a paradigm shift is not what really matters, nor is it what has really caused this sudden(sic) interest in organizational knowledge and KM and flux of KM theory. What really matters is the danger associated with an inherent belief that everything should come with a paradigm shift

References:

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (1999a), “Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits”, Communications of the AIS, (1)7

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (1999b) “Knowledge Management Systems: Emerging Views and Practices from the Field,”Communications of the AIS, February, 1999.

Alavi, A., and Leidner, D. (2001) "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues",. MIS Quarterly (25:1), 2001, pp. 107-136.

on PRESENCING - Scharmer

Aboubakr A. Moteleb — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:11:46 +0100

This article reviews & reflects on 'Presencing' by Sharmer (2000 & 2001)

New business challenges/opportunities require new methods

Scharmer (2000) argues in presencing that organizations are now facing a new set of business challenges/opportunities that can rarely be successfully addressed with traditional methods and concepts such as those of organizational learning. This could also be argued in relation to systems development methodologies; developing systems for this new set of business challenges/opportunities need new development methodologies. Scharmer argues that this is primarily due to an often irrelevant experience base of the team for the issue or situation at hand. Therefore, prejorative use of the term 'not invented here syndrome' is not always valid in arguments to demonstrate the importance of lessons learned within and among organizations. For this organizations need to develop a new cognitive capability for sensing and seizing opportunities through engaging their stakehoilders in a different kind of learning cycle: "one that allows them to learn from the future as it emerges, rather than from reflecting on past experiences" (Scharmer 2000).

Presencing -- an emerging sixth discipline?

Scharmer (2000) confirms what was argued by Senge et al. (1994 & 1999) that a number of learning methods (referred to as 'disciplines') emerged in the last few decades including Systems Thinking (soft rather than hard), Personal Mastery, Dialogue, Parallel Structuring, Process Consultation, and others; each of which is grounded in a distinct body of principles and practices (see Argyris and Schön 1996; Schein 1987, 1992, 1999; Senge 1990; Bohm 1990; Isaacs 1999; Senge et al. 1994, 1999; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Kim 1992, 1994). Scharmer sees these methods as representing different parts of the human body:

the head: Systems Thinking (conceptualization)

the feet: Process Consultation & Parallel Structures (grounded in business realities)

the heart: Dialogue, Personal Mastery, and Presencing (what people really care about)

Scharmer concludes that the implication of this is profound yet simple: the tool for leading change is the leader’s Self.

References:

Sharmer (2000) “Presencing: Learning From the Future As It Emerges. On the Tacit Dimension of Leading Revolutionary Change.”Presented at the Conference On Knowledge and Innovation, May 25-26, Helsinki, Finnland.

Scharmer C.O. (2001) "Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities", Journal of knowledge Management, Vol 5 No 2, pp. 137-151

Recent Publications

Aboubakr A. Moteleb — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:24:07 +0000

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]

Ontology of KMS Elements

Aboubakr A. Moteleb — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:06:29 +0000

ABSTRACT

Knowledge management often refers to various theories and definitions. However, there is a lack of consensus on what exactly knowledge management is and what constitutes a knowledge management system. We are engaged in research into the development of knowledge management systems from principles of practical knowledge management uncovered by a thorough analysis of the literature. As a precursor to field work with ‘knowledge practitioners’ we have conducted our analyses on the ‘practices’ embodied in seminal work of scholars, even as they have changed for individual researcher over time. Thus this paper explains our approach in attempting to identify elements of knowledge management systems according to scholars’ texts in the literature.

You can read the full article in EMCIS 2005

Polymorphic Nature of Knowledge

Aboubakr A. Moteleb — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:33:21 +0000

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