Assignment Cover Sheet

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology

Module Name: Knowledge Management

Module Number : CE00543-7

Title of Assignment : Coursework - Research Paper

Module Learning Outcomes for This Assignment

1. ENGAGE CRITICALLY WITH THE LITERATURE RELATING TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM).

2. CRITICALLY EVALUATE AND APPLY MODELS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE IN ORGANISATIONS.

3. IDENTIFY, CATEGORISE AND CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE SUITABILITY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT.

4. REFLECT ON THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE OF KNOWLEDGE MANIPULATION ACTIVITIES.

1

STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITYFaculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology

Module – Knowledge ManagementCE00543-7

Assignment February 2012

Assignment – the research paper contributes 100% to the overall mark for the module assessment.

Assignment – Research Paper

1. ObjectivesThis module is intended to develop the subject matter along a number of theoretical, methodological and practical perspectives through the medium of formal lectures and tutorials, with which the students are expected to engage. Knowledge Management is a wide ranging and complex discipline and many areas cannot be fitted into the lecture programme. For this reason a series of seminars are included in the schedule, which will involve students in some reading to extend their knowledge and understanding of the domain. To broaden and reinforce this knowledge and to give students practical experience of secondary research, the coursework assignment is in the form of a research paper.

The objective of the research paper is to allow students to enlarge their experience of the subject by selecting one topic and exploring it in a depth suitable for Masters level study. The students will therefore be expected to produce a research paper which is analytical, critical and reflective in line with the learning objectives of a Postgraduate award.

This work will therefore require the search of appropriate information sources (e.g. journals, research papers, books, hardware and software), the collation and critique of ideas found therein, and the development of conclusions. Students will be expected to view and compare the chosen topic from a variety of perspectives and will be particularly encouraged to relate it to the context of practicing designers working on real-world problems. The final report should be written in a formal academic style and at the level of a postgraduate research paper.

You should include as an appendix a log-book that details and briefly describes the work you have done and the research you have carried out in producing the coursework assignment. This should include your attendance at the Seminars (see Schedule) and a critique of what you have learned from them and how it might have influenced your approach to the coursework.

2

2. Learning Outcomes (see also Front Sheet)

On completion of this assessment you should be able to:

1. ENGAGE CRITICALLY WITH THE LITERATURE RELATING TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM).

2. CRITICALLY EVALUATE AND APPLY MODELS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE IN ORGANISATIONS.

3. IDENTIFY, CATEGORISE AND CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE SUITABILITY OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT.

4. REFLECT ON THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE OF KNOWLEDGE MANIPULATION ACTIVITIES.

3. ProcedureThe research paper will be conducted individually. Each student will choose one topic from the list of topics supplied (see Section 5). This assignment will be a student-centered activity, although the lecturers are available for consultation in seminar sessions. Help and advice will be given provided the student has made a genuine attempt to solve a problem themselves. Students should email the module leader when they have chosen a topic and that topic will be ‘registered’ in their name. As there may be more students than there are topics, it is to be expected that two or more students will be addressing the same topic. This does not mean that the work will be similar. Each student should ensure that the work submitted is his or her own work (see Section 6). It does not matter if more than one student chooses a topic, as each student’s work will be different (see Section 6).

4. General FormatThe length of the main body of the paper should be 5000 words maximum. This excludes the title page, abstract, references, bibliography and appendices. A ‘template’ example is provided for your use in formatting of your paper in Appendix A. You should not rely on this for content, but should read as many peer –reviewed research papers (e.g. in reputable journals) as you can. In addition your paper should include a front title sheet displaying the information in Appendix B. The work should be submitted in a convenient folder. The Faculty standard feedback front sheet (obtainable form the award support office) should be used. An electronic copy of the report (CD or disk) should be handed in with the paper copy. The Turnitin similarity detection software may be used. The Harvard referencing system must be used throughout. Make sure you understand it. Illustrations, figures, tables etc. should be numbered sequentially. See for instance: www.uwe.ac.uk/library/resources/general/info_study_skills/harvard2.htm

Assignment Schedule

Assignment Hand Out Date: Friday 3rd February 2012Assignment Hand In Date: Thursday 5th April 2012 by the usual deadline

time published by the Faculty Office.

3

5. Research Paper Topics. You must select one topic for your research paper.

1) Is Knowledge Management (KM) really all ‘hype’ or nonsense? A review and critical examination of the main definitions of the terms and concepts of KM. Discuss the argument that ‘everything in IT is information or data’ and that knowledge is a purelyhuman property.

2) A review and critique of Knowledge Management (KM) frameworks in practice and a discussion of the potential for linking them with systems development methods in a typical organisation.

3) An informal view could be put forward that Facebook is the most successful example of public domain Knowledge Management (KM) software in existence. Discuss the arguments that could lead to this view, highlighting the features of Facebook that you would class as being in the KM domain. Indicate as clearly as you can how those features and their use would map onto existing KM models and frameworks. You may discuss briefly the potential of other social networking applications for being developed as commercial KM applications.

4) An analysis, comparison and recommendation of the features of the CommonKADS and SMARTvision Knowledge Management (KM) development methods for use in a specific application (e.g. organization) of the student’s choice. A ‘formal’ method of comparison (e.g. feature analysis) should be used.

5) A discussion of the applicability of the Action Research approach for use in developing Knowledge Management (KM) in an organization of the student’s choice. The research paper should review both the literature on research methods, Knowledge Management and their conjunction (e.g. the ALTAR project).

6) A critical review of the potential strengths, weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of the use of the SMARTVision Knowledge Management (KM) development method in a variety of applications of the student’s choice.

7) An examination of the uses of Knowledge Management (KM) in enabling and supporting Communities of Practice in a sector of the student’s choice.

8) The use of Knowledge Management (KM) in establishing and maintaining an Enterprise Architecture in an organization or business sector of the student’s choice.

9) An analysis of the development of Knowledge Management (KM)applications in the UK National Health Service, reviewing and discussing the organisational factors and identifying the initiatives that led to the developments.

4

6. PlagiarismTo submit another person’s work as if it is your own is plagiarism is a very serious academic offence. Please do not ever consider it. Remember that accidental plagiarism is easily avoided by referencing your work properly. The simple rule is that you must not represent the ideas of other people (whether they are published works or the work of other students) as your own. You should also make sure that you ‘add value’ to the references by your own comments, comparisons etc. Make sure that you are aware of how to do a literature review and how to reference other peoples’ work.

See www.staffs.ac.uk/uniservices/infoservices/studyskills/references/index/php

The Turnitin plagiarism detection software will be used on all submissions.See www.turnitin/ac/uk.Turnitin is accessed through the Blackboard entry for the module.

7. Marking Criteria – see Feedback Form

Distinction CriteriaDistinctive work will exhibit a high level of penetration and discernment in analysis and outstanding cogency and clarity in communication. The research paper should be exceptionally well substantiated in its analysis, reasoning and conclusions.

In addition, at the advanced level the student will demonstrate an exceptional ability to synthesise innovative perspectives of the topic with work from other parts of the discipline.

Merit CriteriaA student should be able to show further evidence of knowledge, understanding and application of the module material, through an analysis and evaluation of any of the recommendations they make. Typically, the student will show a level of conceptual understanding that allows her/him critically to evaluate research, techniques and/or methodologies applicable to their topic and argue alternative approaches. An advanced level will be indicated by the student’s reference to and integration of material from previous programmes of study.

Pass CriteriaThe student will show the ability to select and apply appropriate techniques for analysis, providing evidence and making recommendations. The student will also be able to discriminate between alternative solutions. There should be satisfactory evidence of knowledge, understanding and application of the module material.

A research paper, which fails to show evidence of a thorough investigation of the relevant literature, which presents facts uncritically, is likely to result in failure.

5

Knowledge Management CE00543-M

Research Paper Feedback Form (100% of marks)

Student Number:

Paper Title:

Area to be considered and comments Max mark

Mark Allocated

Introduction and Literature ReviewResearch relevance to topic area and suitable depth of study. Is the context of the work well explained.Critical appraisal of other people's work

20

Research ApproachClear identification and justification of the methods and techniques used.

20

Analysis and Evaluation (Discussion)Rigorous analysis of current work.

40

Conclusions and RecommendationsA summative review of the key issues are provided.Are areas for further work identified and explored?Has clarity and focus been achieved?Reflective view of the coursework as a learning experience

15

Structure and PresentationProfessionally written and structured. Accurate and correct style of referencing, and up to date. Logbook present, detailed and comprehensive.

5

TOTAL 100

6

Appendix A: Research Paper Template and Example.

Note: this example is an indication of format and structure only. It is not a guide to writing style, content of length.

Title: Communication and Knowledge Stakeholders: A Participative Design Approach to Knowledge Sharing.

Abstract (250 words maximum)

Keywords (Maximum of 5 words)

(A typical structure may follow this pattern)

1. Introduction

Knowledge Management (KM) is increasingly recognised as an integral part of an organisation’s strategy to improve business performance, offering new challenges and opportunities and in increasing an organisations competitive viability (Rincon and Kadi, 2004; Carrillo et al, 2003). Organisations must leverage and externalise the knowledge available, by making it explicit and widely available to employees, customers, end-users, partners and field based staff. Therefore knowledge sharing initiatives in organisations are becoming important with firms making significant investment to deploy KM solutions (Hahn and Subramani, 2000). …………

2. Literature Review (Theoretical context main heading and sub headings)

The purpose of this literature review is to define the domains that are relevant to the research and to identify existing work that has been done in the area by other people. It forms the secondary research component of the research paper.

A range of sources will be used, and it is recognized that the more authoritative sources (e.g. academic journals) are often not the most up to date due to the peer reviewing process, but they are usually the most authoritative and the important parts of the paper are based on them. Magazine articles and websites are sometimes used, as it is recognised that they are often very current, but it is recognised that they are not reliable as they are partial or not refereed. The identified domains are as follows:

2.1 The Sociotechnical perspective

The literature supports the premise that people are regarded as the custodian of organisational knowledge assets and the human factor is considered strategic to the success of any KM initiative (Reychav and Weisberg, 2004; Jashapara, 2004; Coakes et al 2002). Reychav and

7

Weisberg, (2004) further argued that organisational knowledge serves as a metaphor showing that it is not the organisation who creates the knowledge, but the people in it. …………..

2.2 Knowledge Sharing

Huysman and De Wit (2002) studied organisations that acted as knowledge providers with the key interactions occurring with their customers. Employees were not managed with regard to their contribution to knowledge sharing within the organisation. Therefore the organisations in their study failed to exploit the full potential of knowledge sharing. The organisations were good at supporting individual learning processes, but there were missed opportunities for collective learning………

2.3 Story-telling (Narrative enquiry)

Narrative enquiry or story-telling (this paper will use the expression story-telling) encompasses anecdote (events) or story (characters, tension, points that give meaning and value). Therefore stories have several dimensions which include, place, time, characters and well structured temporally ordered events. Recent research (Wiig, 2004; Oliver and Snowden 2004; Denning 2002), highlights the significance of the role and nature of stories for effective communication, sharing knowledge, acquiring knowledge, understanding values and social norms and in changing enterprises. Sommerville and Sawyer (1997) use stories in requirements engineering to encapsulate information from a particular perspective, providing a partial view of the interactions with the system……….

From the literature review in these domains the following conclusions may be drawn………..

3. Research Approach

3.1 Company profile and project domain description.

XYZ is a large UK based Telecommunications company. The study is based within the retail business unit of the company which is split into four groups, product information systems and technology, finance, operations and marketing. This study is focused within the product information systems and technology group (commonly referred to as ‘XYZ Product Systems’ within the organisation. For the purpose of this study this will be referred to as XYZ.PS). XYZ.PS has three functional areas; development, testing and support. Support is responsible for ensuring that the systems for the group run smoothly and also act as the main interface between the internal and external customers within the XYZ.PS group. The support section incorporates the helpdesk unit for first and second line support……..

3.2 Method, Process and Techniques adopted

The project is being completed over a four month period from February to May 2005. The participants in the study were identified by the business unit manager. The participants are identified by their roles; help desk operators, engineers, field engineers, prison staff and coaches. One important factor was the role of the facilitator. The facilitator is not employed by the organisation and he is not a domain (telecommunications) expert and is therefore not familiar with the language and processes. Therefore this should reduce any fore-knowledge bias…….

8

4. Discussion

The study found that informal and open face to face meetings and discussions were a significant part of the communications process. Participants would share tacit knowledge more readily. The study was based ‘in situ’ and therefore was prone to numerous forms of interruptions and delays. Due to organisational constraints and access to the participants, the availability of the participants was at times a limitation. Contextual inquiry and evaluation had to be conducted and fitted within the work schedule of the participants; this led to delays in the execution of the research programme…….. .

4.1 Stories and Scenarios for Elaboration, Analysis and Negotiation

The stories (created by the participants, who are not expert story-tellers) highlighted the focus on the individual and their work context and the limitations at this level for knowledge sharing. The participants are driven by deliverables and work processes are defined by tasks, where the value is in the result delivered……..

Key elements observed, formulated and extracted from the stories during elaboration, analysis and negotiation were……..

The scenarios were used for the formal mapping of the processes and knowledge requirements for the knowledge repository for service and support within XYZ.PS. Simulation of the scenarios, utilising ‘walk-throughs’ and prototyping and collaborative evaluation of the prototypes was conducted. These processes and techniques are not discussed in this paper, merely highlighted.

5. Conclusion and future direction

The driver for the study commenced from a top-down perspective, driven by the business needs. However, due to the nature of the processes employed, this allowed for an approach to be adopted that focused on the participants (the knowledge stakeholders), their roles and the subsequent communications and narrative to drive the study. ……

The challenge for organisations is to provide process support, to foster and nurture dialogue and interactions between the groups and to share knowledge at an earlier stage, in order to strengthen core competencies, support knowledge flows and knowledge exchange initiatives, moving towards a community level approach. The participants in this study have already collectively moved towards this level. This now requires an alignment with the organisational structure, culture, environment and technologies to support this on-going process

References

Carrillo, P., Robinson, H., Anumba, C. and Al-Ghassani, A. (2003). IMPaKT: A framework for linking knowledge management to business performance. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management [On-line], 1(2), pp 1-12. Available from: http://www.ejkm.com/volume-1/volume1-issue1/issue1-art1.htm. [Accessed 23 November 2004]. Coakes, D, Willis, S, Clarke, (2002) eds. Knowledge management in the sociotechnical world: the graffiti continues. London: Springer, pp 153-169.Denning, S (2002) The Springboard: How storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-era Organisations. Butterworth-Heinemann, Massachusetts.

9

Hahn, J. and Subramani, M. (2000). A framework of knowledge management systems: issues and challenges for theory and practice, in: Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 2000, pp: 302 – 312.Huysman, M and De Wit, D (2002) Knowledge Sharing in Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Jashapara, A. (2004). Knowledge management: an integrated approach. Prentice Hall, Essex, England. Oliver, G R and Snowden, D J (2004) A Short Critique of the Methods for Using Narrative Enquiry in Organisations: Refolding the Envelope of Art-Luddism and Techno-Fabulism. Proceedings of the 5th

European Conference on Knowledge Management. Vol. 2. pp 675-687.Reychav, I.,Weisberg, J. (2004) Antecedents and outcomes of knowledge management: an individual- level model, in: Proceedings of Fifth European Conference on Knowledge Management (5th ECKM), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France, 30 September-1 October 2004, MCIL, Reading, UK, pp 749-760. Rincon, M., Kadi, R. (2004). Strategies towards the knowledge society: case study from a developing country, in: Proceedings of Fifth European Conference on Knowledge Management (5 th ECKM), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris, France, 30 September-1 October 2004, MCIL, Reading, UK, pp 775-783. Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, P., (1997) Requirements Engineering. A good practice guide. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, England. Wiig, K (2004) People Focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision Making Leads to Corporate Success. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

10

Appendix B: Front Sheet Template

STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITYFaculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology

Module – CE005437 Knowledge Management

Insert the full title of the paper.

Insert Student ID number not student name or e-mail.

For the attention of:

Module Leader: Dr. W.A. Eardley

The date of submission.

11