Knowledge Management

KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENTAN EVOLUTIONARY VIEW

Becerra-FernandezTitleHalf.qxd 5/5/2008 10:01 AM Page 2

Advances in Management Information Systems

Advisory Board

Eric K. ClemonsUniversity of Pennsylvania

Thomas H. DavenportAccenture Institute for Strategic Change

andBabson College

Varun GroverClemson University

Robert J. KauffmanUniversity of Minnesota

Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr.University of Arizona

Andrew B. WhinstonUniversity of Texas

ADVANCES IN MANAGEMENTI N F OR M AT ION S Y S T E M SVLADIMIR ZWASS SERIES EDITOR

AMS

M.E.SharpeArmonk, New YorkLondon, England

IRMA BECERRA-FERNANDEZDOROTHY LEIDNEREDITORS



Copyright 2008 by M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any formwithout written permission from the publisher, M.E. Sharpe, Inc.,

80 Business Park Drive, Armonk, New York 10504.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

References to the AMIS papers should be as follows:

Maryam Alavi and Gerald C. Kane. Social networks and information technology: Evolution and new frontiers. Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Dorothy Leidner, eds., Knowledge Management: An Evolutionary View. Advances in Management Information System. Vol. 12 (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008), 6385.

ISBN 978-0-7656-1637-1ISSN 1554-6152

Printed in the United States of America

The paper in this publication meets the minimum requirements ofAmerican National Standards for Information Sciences

Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,ANSI Z 39.48-1984.

~

IBT (c) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ADVANCES IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

AMIS Vol. 1: Richard Y. Wang, Elizabeth M. Pierce, Stuart E. Madnick, and Craig W. Fisher

Information QualityISBN 9780-765611338

AMIS Vol. 2: Sergio deCesare, Mark Lycett, and Robert D. Macredie

Development of Component-Based Information SystemsISBN 9780-765612489

AMIS Vol. 3: Jerry Fjermestad and Nicholas C. Romano, Jr.

Electronic Customer Relationship ManagementISBN 9780-76561327-1

AMIS Vol. 4: Michael J. ShawE-Commerce and the Digital EconomyISBN 9780-76561150-5

AMIS Vol. 5: Ping Zhang and Dennis GallettaHuman-Computer Interaction and Management

Information Systems: FoundationsISBN 9780-765614865

AMIS Vol. 6: Dennis Galletta and Ping ZhangHuman-Computer Interaction and Management

Information Systems: ApplicationsISBN 9780-765614872

AMIS Vol. 7: Murugan Anandarajan, Thompson S.H. Teo, and Claire A. SimmersThe Internet and Workplace TransformationISBN 9780-765614452

AMIS Vol. 8: Suzanne Rivard and Benoit Aubert Information Systems SourcingISBN 9780-765616852

AMIS Vol. 9: Varun Grover and M. Lynne Markus Business Process TransformationISBN 9780-765611918

AMIS Vol. 10: Panos E. Kourouthanassis and George M. GiaglisPervasive Information SystemsISBN 9780-765616890

AMIS Vol. 11: Detmar W. Straub, Seymour Goodman, and Richard BaskervilleInformation Security Policy and PracticesISBN 9780-765617187

AMIS Vol. 12: Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Dorothy LeidnerKnowledge Management: An Evolutionary ViewISBN 9780-765616371

Forthcoming volumes of this series can be found on the series homepage.www.mesharpe.com/amis.htm

Editor in Chief, Vladimir Zwass ([email protected])

vCONTENTS

Series Editors Introduction Vladimir Zwass viiPreface xiii

1. On Knowledge, Knowledge Management, and Knowledge Management Systems: An Introduction

Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Dorothy Leidner 3

Part I. A Conceptual Lens for Knowledge Management 11

2. Individual, Group, and Organizational Learning: A Knowledge Management Perspective

Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Rajiv Sabherwal 13

3. Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture Dorothy E. Leidner and Timothy R. Kayworth 40

Part II. The Role of Information Technology in Knowledge Management 61

4. Social Networks and Information Technology: Evolution and New Frontiers Maryam Alavi and Gerald C. Kane 63

5. The Evolution of Knowledge Management Technology: From Explicit Rules to Implicit Profiles

Ulrike Schultze 86

6. A Four-Layer Model for Information Technology Support of Knowledge Management Matteo Bonifacio, Thomas Franz, and Steffen Staab 104

Part III. The Role of Knowledge Management Systems in the Organization 125

7. Mobilizing Knowledge in a Yu-Gi-Oh! World Youngjin Yoo 127

8. The Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Knowledge Transfer and Organizational Form

David G. Schwartz and Dov Teeni 145

vi CONTENTS

9. Moving Toward a Knowledge Management Maturity Model (K3M) for Developing Knowledge Management Strategy and Implementation Plans

Jay Liebowitz and Tom Beckman 163

10. Building Knowledge Management Systems to Improve Profits and Create Loyal Users: Lessons from the Pharmaceutical Industry

Alan R. Dennis, Dong-Gil Ko, and Paul F. Clay 180

11. Can We Learn from Our Past? Managing Knowledge Within and Across Projects Patrick S. W. Fong 204

Part IV. Knowledge Management and Teams Within and Across Organizations 227

12. Managing Knowledge in Virtual Communities Within Organizations Naren B. Peddibhotla and Mani R. Subramani 229

13. Dynamic Team Memory Systems: Enabling Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness in Structurally Diverse Distributed Teams

Ann Majchrzak, Arvind Malhotra, and Richard John 248

14. Electronic Knowledge Networks: Processes and Structure Samer Faraj, Molly McLure Wasko, and Steven L. Johnson 270

15. Ad Hoc Interorganizational Collaboration: Safeguards for Balancing Sharing and Protection of Knowledge

Yongsuk Kim, Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Ann Majchrzak 292

Editors and Contributors 309Series Editor 317Index 319

vii

SERIES EDITORS INTRODUCTION

Vladimir Zwass, Editor-in-ChiEf

We live in a knowledge economy. National prosperity, employment and employability, and corporate and personal success all depend on the ability of societal units and individuals to assimilate the existing knowledge, generate new knowledge, and bring knowledge into action. These capabilities determine a countrys progress in the globalizing world, a firms success in the heightening global competition, a teams effectiveness in an enterprise, and an individuals chance to become a leader within his or her domain of action. It is no longer sufficient to stand on the shoulders of giants: we need to run very fast and find ever new giants to shoulder the innovation. The exponential growth of scientific and practical knowledge has been taking place for over two centuries, since the Industrial Revolution (Mokyr, 2002). Over the past half-century, this process has accelerated owing to the information and communication technologies, acting as tools, media, and the complements of the human mind. The accessibility of the existing knowledge, and that of the individuals who create it and who know, has increased vastly. This has, in its turn, amplified the ability to learn and to create new knowledge. Since the early 1990s, the InternetWeb compound has further increased the velocity of knowledge creation and application and, together with the political change, has truly globalized the power of knowledge to change human pursuits and circumstances.

The pioneer who recognized and conceptualized this shift was Fritz Machlup (1962). Without identifying at that time the distinction between knowledge and information, he computed that in the advanced industrial economy of the United States half a century ago, its sectors related to these entities accounted for 29% of the Gross National Product and engaged 31% of labor force. We have since come to realize that knowledge-related activities can no longer be compartmentalized. They are not limited to certain sectors of the economy, organizational units (such as research and development), or professions. In our society and in our organizations, knowledge is everybodys business. A mathematician will prove a theorem that defied proof for a century and that will leadafter a period that cannot be determineda software engineer to design a more semanti-cally rich Web-search algorithm, resulting in increased revenue in B2C e-commerce. With her experiential knowledge, a fork-lift operator will come up with the superior method of stacking pallets, resulting in the better utilization of warehouse space, faster operation of container ports, and access to new markets.

In consequence, knowledge management (KM) has been recognized as a source of vital or-ganizational capabilities, leading to a successful competitive positioning. Pursuing the general objectives of the Advances in Management Information Systems, the present AMIS volume shows both the advances in our knowledge about KM and the research methods deployed to generate this knowledge. The volume has been edited by two leading experts in KM, with contributions from the top scholars in the field. It remains to me here to provide additional context.

What is knowledge? How does this seemingly abstract concept relate to the pragmatics of

viii SERIES EDITORS INTRODUCTION

organizations? What is KM? It is, of course, well to say that knowledge cannot be managed, butas the volume shows and as I argue herethe ability of an organization to know what it knows and to be able to apply it is a necessary and generalized capability.

Since Plato, a common definition of knowledge has crystallized as that of justified true belief. The important part of this, rather unsatisfying, definition is the need for evidence as the measure of truth. More recent epistemological work indeed centers on what external evidence is needed for the belief to be justified. The evidence that warrants scientific knowledge differs from that underwriting the more pragmatic organizational knowledge types, yet in all cases warrants for truth are necessary.

In our approach to KM, it is important to distinguish knowledge from information. Knowledge is an organized structure of facts, relationships, experience, skills, and insights that produces a capacity for action. It follows that some knowledge inheres in individuals, while some has been codified to transcend the limitationsand advantagesof individual minds. The degrees of or-ganization, the validity of knowledge, and its influence on actions differ among individuals. (The distinction between knowledge and an accumulation of facts has received its unrivaled depiction in the last, unfinished, novel of Gustave Flaubert, Bouvard and Pcuchet.) With advances in in-formation technology (IT) and telecommunications, the capacity and degree of organization and accessibility of external knowledge stores, combined with the means of communication among knowers, have made the effective knowledge a potent economic resource (Foray, 2004). Informa-tion is an increment to knowledge, meaningful to its individual recipient. This increment may become another node in a conceptual schema, affect the contents of a node, or, indeed, cause a structural change in the overall knowledge framework. The distinctions between knowledge and information are important, as they determine the difference in our approach to KM compared with information management.

Three distinctions appear most salient. Knowledge is always provisional as an aggregatewhether in a human mind, in a technical handbook, as an organizational knowledge base, or in a science. This goes to the very core of human understanding of the world. The gravity in the Newto-nian physics was a force drawing us to the planets surface; in the Einsteinian physics, it is a warp, induced by Earths mass. Biology leavened by the discoveries of genetics has become a largely different discipline. Obviously, in the aggregate, we do not know what we do not know.

By far, not all knowledge is explicit or codified in the great variety of repositories. An important part of knowledge is personal (Polanyi, 1962). It inheres in the knowing individual, is tacit, and is difficult to access by others. A superb diagnostician, an experienced geologist, a recognized pianist, a successful commodities trader, or a fully skilled chocolate maker with 40 years on the job is not replaceable by a knowledge system. Techniques of sharing and articulating tacit knowledge have been offered, along with a stepwise progression in the creation of new knowledge in organizations (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). However, much of knowledge is gained with experience and remains tacit. This is the more sticky knowledge that is at the source of the competitive advantage of the entities to which it sticks. Beyond that, all knowledge is accessible to organization through the mediation of individuals with knowledge. An individuals assessment of the context, interpretation of the new information, recognition of an analogy or a mental template, and capability to use the knowledge to actualize a new state of affairs make all the difference in performance.

Further, knowledge is always in a certain sense collective. The validation of knowledge compo-nents, including mathematical proofs, is a social process. The deployment of individual knowledge in a firm occurs within the context of a team or another social group that can amplify, attenuate, complement, enhance, elaborate, distort, or articulate what an individual can accomplish. Knowl-edge sharing and collective reinterpretation, particularly across the organizational boundaries, are

SERIES EDITORS INTRODUCTION ix

key to innovation (Lester and Piore, 2004). Informal exchanges across disciplinary domains are at the source of a great variety of product and process innovations. Communities of practice have been recognized as the bearers and generators of collective knowledge (Wenger and Snyder, 2000).

Knowledge management has to be conducted in full recognition of the above distinctions. Only a limited part of the overall task of KM can be automated; we cannot meaningfully talk about KM systems in the same sense as we speak about information-processing systems. We may, in a sense, speak about symbiosis of people and IT, as Licklider (1960) did in an early visionary article. Beyond that, collective processes need to be supported to share, elaborate, converse about, and debate. It is about connecting people across space, time, and disciplinary or organizational borders. Yet the people can be supported by the systems that make available the externally stored knowledge, help circulate electronic boundary objects, and store the activity traces as desired. Vigilant IT-supported processes have to keep the current knowledge up to date, even as the histori-cal components are archived. The apportioning of cognitive tasks between people and IT changes as we learn more about KM.

The distinctive properties of knowledge shape the general contours of KM as the general hu-man pursuit in organizations, with the ever more comprehensive assistance from IT. KM is the organizational policy and set of practices aimed at recognizing, creating, categorizing, maintaining, sharing, and applying the collective knowledge of people assisted by IT. The corpora of explicit knowledge that can have impact on organizational performance are expanding rapidly, with much of it stored outside of the firm. Extensive deployment of IT is necessary to cope with the exist-ing knowledge and to generate new knowledge. Organizational knowledge includes not only the technologies needed for its production and product innovation. It also encompasses the process and administrative knowledge, the relationship knowledge about its customers, suppliers, and partners, financial knowledge specialized to its businessand so much more. Organizations products can be seen to containor even becongealed knowledge (Arthur, 1996). This is particularly so with more advanced software, containing as it does knowledge about a specific domain. New business models and organizational forms congeal around knowledge. As one example, Cobalt International Company of Houstonwith its 35 employeesis in the business of deepwater oil exploration, a traditional bailiwick of large multinationals (Mouawad, 2007). The firm buys immense volumes of seismic data to be analyzed by IT-assisted experts. Cobalt outsources everything other than its core, which consists of the knowledge of the highly experienced geologists and geophysicists, minimizing the number of dry wells that would be drilled at a great expense and to no avail. A large virtual company has been created around a small knowledge-based core.

Organizational KM can be seen sparsely within a framework of four process sets, aiming at creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and application of knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Another way to perceive KM is as the management of the organizational memory, assisted by an organizational memory information system (OMIS) that supports the fundamental activities leading to organizational effectiveness (Stein and Zwass, 1995). Organizational memory is de-fined in this conceptualization as the means by which knowledge of the past is brought to bear on present activities (Stein and Zwass, 1995, p. 89). Electronic traces left today by most orga-nizational performances can be categorized, structured, and organized to assist knowledge work in the future. This and all other knowledge are organized around the firms experience. Thus, the presence of an electronic product prototype will certainly assist in the development of the future product; but this assistance will be so much more fruitful in innovation if the design rationale had been provided by storing the narratives and partial designs as they evolved into the final design solution. As contexts and constraints change in the future, so will the design rationale, and so will the product. By consistent management of the experiential knowledge of people and in electronic

x SERIES EDITORS INTRODUCTION

repositories, the mechanisms for assimilating and renewing corporate knowledge are enacted. Such conceptualization evokes different cultural phenomena and different habits of performance (Ricoeur, 2004). An OMIS may also be incorporated within the larger scheme of KM.

The developments in IT, particularly since the assimilation of the InternetWeb compound, have enabled a far more comprehensive support for KM. Search engines, social networking, in-tranets, wikis, and myriad other tools have joined expert systems, case bases, and document- and content-management systems on the widespread organizational and interorganizational platforms. Knowledge discovery and elaboration through data mining, elicitation from experts, case-based reasoning, collaborative work with groupware systems, and systems for the aggregation of collec-tive wisdom are supported by a variety of electronic repositories, as often as not distributed around the world. However, as constantly stressed in this volume, it is the human thought and action, the organizational culture and processes, and incentive alignment that are at the core of KM.

As you will conclude in reading this volume, the research domain of KM in the overall manage-ment information systems research ranges widely, reflecting the importance of KM for organiza-tional well-being and competitive posture. The work published here represents the great variety of research streams contributed to the overall KM domain. Our understanding of KM strategies is being systematized (Earl, 1991). Motivation to share ones knowledge within an organization generally does not come naturally and motivational schemes are being studied (Quigley et al., 2007). Deep interdependencies exist between the enactment of KM practices and organizational culture (Alavi, Kayworth, and Leidner, 20052006). Knowledge-based approaches are being ap-plied to the coordination of globally distributed project teams (Espinosa et al., 2007). The methods of disciplined expertise location over the Web are being explored (Becerra-Fernandez, 2006). A design theory for systems aimed to support knowledge processes has been proposed (Markus, Majchrzak, and Gasser, 2002). The measures of success of organizational KM are being studied (Kulkarni, Ravindran, and Freeze, 2007). The chapters of the volume are a worthy contribution to and an illustration of this research tradition in formation.

Looking forward, we will study the changing conception of knowledge production and produc-tive assimilation as the realm of the possible is expanding and as boundaries blur. The warrant for scientific knowledge now includes computer-based experimentation. Corporations are a vital source of scientific knowledge and innovation. Universities produce extensive intellectual property. The management of knowledge will be an ever more weighty undertaking, undergirded by IT.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M.; Kayworth, T.R.; and Leidner D.E. 20052006. An empirical examination of the influence of or-ganizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 3 (Winter), 191224.

Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. 2001. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25, 1 (March), 107136.

Arthur, W.B. 1996. Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 101109.

Becerra-Fernandez, I. 2006. Searching for experts on the Web: A review of contemporary expertise locator systems. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 6, 4 (November), 333355.

Earl, M. 2001. Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems 18, 1 (Summer), 215233.

Espinosa, J.A.; Slaughter, S.A.; Kraut, R.E.; and Herbsleb, J.D. 2007 Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 1 (Summer), 135169.

Foray, D. 2004. Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kulkarni, U.; Ravindran, S.; and Freeze, R. 2007. A knowledge management success model: Theoretical

SERIES EDITORS INTRODUCTION xi

development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 3 (Winter), 309347.

Lester, R.K., and Piore, M.J. 2004. Innovation: The Missing Dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Licklider, J.C.R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1, March, 411.

Machlup, F. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Markus, M.L.; Majchrzak, A.; and Gasser, L. 2002. A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26, 3, 179212.

Mokyr, J. 2002. The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mouawad, J. 2007. A wildcatter pounces. The New York Times, Sunday Business Section, May 20, BU-1, BU7.

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M. 1962. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (corr. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Quigley, N.R.; Tesluk, P.E.; Locke, E.A.; and Bartol, K.M. 2007. A multilevel investigation of the motiva-tional mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18, 1 (Janu-ary-February), 7188.

Ricoeur, P. 2004. Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Stein, E.W., and Zwass, V. 1995. Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information

Systems Research 6, 2, 85117.Wenger, E., and Snyder, W.M. 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business

Review (January-February), 139145.

xiii

PREFACE

This research volume offers a collection of refereed research chapters in the field of knowledge management (KM). Written by researchers who have made significant contributions to the field of KM and KM systems (KMS) in the past several years, each chapter seeks to synthesize how research perspectives on a particular topic in KM have progressed over the years, thereby illustrating the dynamic and evolutionary nature of KM theories and documenting the intellectual milestones of KM. In presenting how thinking about KM has evolved over a period of time, the chapters elucidate how ideas have moved from being novel to being commonly accepted, how seemingly obvious truths have turned out to be more nuanced and multifaceted over time, how new lines of KM research have emerged from the shortcomings of other lines, and how the presumed purpose of KM (and thus, KMS) has changed over time.

In short, we hope that this volume will become a key resource by presenting the journey of KM over time, which is significantly different than the time-bound perspectives that peer-reviewed articles typically present.

We would first like to thank all the chapter authors, who contributed their knowledge and time to the preparation of the chapters in this volume, and who also assisted in the review of their peers contributions. Much like in KMS, the authors of this volume are the mind and spirit of this knowledge base. We would also like to thank our editor-in-chief of the Advances in Manage-ment Information Systems (AMIS) series, Vladimir Zwass, for all his advice and support during the development of this monograph. We are also thankful to Harry Briggs, executive editor, and Elizabeth Granda, associate editor, both of M.E. Sharpe. Finally, we want to thank our families, for their love, encouragement, and understanding of the importance of us devoting the necessary time to the completion of this public good.

3ChaptEr 1

ON KNOWLEDGE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, AND KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSAn Introduction

irma BECErra-fErnandEZ and dorothy lEidnEr

Abstract: The discipline of knowledge management (KM) has evolved over time. This intro-duction presents the motivation for organizations to continue to pursue the goal of effectively managing their intellectual resources, even in light of prior failures. This research monograph offers a collection of fifteen refereed research chapters in the field of KM. Written by researchers who have made significant contributions to the field of KM and KM systems in the past several years, each chapter seeks to synthesize how research perspectives on a particular topic in KM have progressed over the years, thereby illustrating the dynamic and evolutionary nature of KM theories and documenting the intellectual milestones of KM. In presenting how thinking about KM has evolved over a period of time, the chapters elucidate how ideas have moved from being novel to being commonly accepted, how seemingly obvious truths have turned out to have more nuances and be more multifaceted over time, how new lines of KM research have emerged from the shortcomings of other lines, and how the presumed purpose of KM, and thus of KM systems, has changed over time.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Knowledge Management Systems

How do we want to leave the world for the next generation? What are good initial condi-tions for them? One desideratum would be a world offering as many alternatives as pos-sible to future decision makers, avoiding irreversible commitments that they cannot undo. . . . A second desideratum is to leave the next generation of decision makers with a better body of knowledge and a greater capacity for experience. The aim here is to enable them not just to evaluate alternatives better but especially to experience the world in more and richer ways.

Herbert A. Simon (1996, p. 163)

INTRODUCTION

In the past few years, KM has been viewed as an increasingly important field of study that promotes the creation, capture, sharing, and application of an organizations knowledge. It has been argued that the most vital resource of todays enterprise is the collective knowledge residing in the minds

4 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND LEIDNER

of an organizations employees, customers, and vendors. Learning how to manage organizational knowledge therefore may produce many benefits, including leveraging core business competencies, accelerating innovation and time-to-market, improving cycle times and decision-making, strength-ening organizational commitment, and building sustainable competitive advantage. There is little doubt that the fundamental challenge of organizing and making available important knowledge has probably been present in all types of organizations for thousands of years. Yet, this need became particularly acute in the latter half of the twentieth century, as competitive pressures increasingly pushed employees in large and geographically distributed organizations to specialize in cognitively demanding tasks and to integrate their knowledge across location and specialty.

Much of the emphasis in KM has been on knowledge that has been validated and articulated in some form, including knowledge about processes, procedures, intellectual property, documented best practices, forecasts, lessons learned, and solutions to recurring problems. A greater challenge rests in the development of ways to manage the expertise of employees that resides solely in their minds, and to enhance the returns of such knowledge.

A wide range of scholars has made important contributions toward understanding the man-agement of knowledge and learning in organizations, and by now it is clear that managers see information technologies as very relevant in solving some kinds of KM problems. The tremen-dous technological advances that made it possible for organizations to manage large amounts of raw data have culminated to a point where information technology (IT) solutions also have been developed to accomplish a wide range of KM-related tasks. Early innovators capitalized on the superior speed of transmission of IT to enhance knowledge sharing, as well as accelerating the growth of knowledge. Later developments included technology to locate and map the distribution of expertise in organizations, to guide users efficiently to find the solutions that uniquely meet their needs from a repository of thousands of best practices, and to create virtual communities. IT thus has provided a major impetus for the development of new approaches toward managing knowledge in organizations. The promise of effective IT-based KMS was grand, and in the 1990s many organizations experimented with the implementation of such systems, often prior to under-standing their implications for the firm.

Despite these developments, it seems clear that KM research is still in the early stages. KM has facilitated the integration of knowledge from a variety of different perspectives. The works of five philosophersLeibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel, and Singerhave significantly influenced the development of KMS, as has the integration of organizational theory into the literature of management information systems. Likewise, information systems researchers have made signifi-cant contributions to KM that also extend into related disciplines, from psychology to artificial intelligence. KM research has influenced our understanding of other relevant research streams, including virtual teams, social networks, and organizational learning (OL).

ABOUT DATA, INFORMATION, AND KNOWLEDGE

Early papers in KM described the differences among data, information, and knowledge in terms of a richness hierarchy, which considers knowledge as the richest and deepest of the three: data consist of facts, observations, or perceptions. Data may be devoid of context, meaning, or intent but can easily be captured, stored, and communicated via electronic or other media. For example, the wind component (u and v) coordinates for a particular hurricanes trajectory, at specific instances of time, are considered to be data (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, and Sabherwal, 2004).

Information has been described as data that possess context, relevance, and purpose. Information involves the manipulation of raw data to obtain a more meaningful indication of trends or pat-

ON KNOWLEDGE, KM, AND KM SYSTEMS 5

terns in the data. Continuing with the above example, based on the u and v components, hurricane software models may be used to create a forecast of the hurricane trajectory, which is considered information (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, and Sabherwal, 2004).

Finally, knowledge is distinguished from data and information in that knowledge refers to infor-mation that enables action and decisions, or information with a direction. Knowledge is then seen at the highest level of a hierarchy, with information at the middle level, and data at the lowest level. Knowledge is then the most valuable of the three. Western philosophers have in general accepted Platos definition of knowledge as a justified true belief. More recent perspectives treat knowledge as a transformation process, enabling the conversion of data into information or information into decisions. Continuing with the same example used above, the knowledge of a hurricane researcher is used to analyze the u and v wind components, as well as the hurricane forecast produced by the different software models, to determine the probability that the hurricane will follow a specific trajectory. Thus, knowledge helps produce information from data, or more valuable information from less valuable information. Knowledge helps to use information to make decisions. Knowledge is typically described as being either tacit or explicit (Polanyi, 1966). Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that has been expressed in words and numbers, and it can be easily codified and shared as data, specifications, computer programs, videos, etc. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, includes knowledge that is difficult to express and share, such as intuitions and insights. Nonaka (1994) describes how knowledge can be converted from these explicit and tacit forms through four different conversion modes, which are (1) from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge through socialization, (2) from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge through externalization, (3) from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge through combination, and (4) from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge through internalization.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS VOLUME

This research monograph offers a collection of fifteen refereed research chapters in the field of KM. Each chapter seeks to synthesize how research perspectives on a particular topic in KM have progressed over the years, thereby illustrating the dynamic and evolutionary nature of KM theories and documenting the intellectual milestones of KM. The chapters in this volume are grounded in multiple disciplines, including computer science, engineering, management information systems, psychology, sociology, economics, strategy, and organizational behavior. In addition, the research methodologies represented in the chapters in this volume include conceptual analysis, empirical research, and qualitative methods. All the chapters synthesize prior work and highlight the key contributions of different streams of research on the topic of analysis.

This research monograph is organized as follows: the Introduction consists of this chapter, which helps to introduce the topic of KM and KM systems and the topics discussed in the volume. Part I presents a conceptual lens for the treatise of organizational topics related to the concept of KM, such as organizational learning and organizational culture. Part II presents a collection of papers that describe the role of information technology in KM, including how KM systems and other forms of organizational memories can support many organizational processes, from supporting social networks to solving knowledge problems. In addition this chapter presents the role of intelligent technologies in KM. Part III presents a collection of papers that describe the changing roles of KM and KM systems in organizations. As practitioners have experimented and found ways to leverage knowledge in their organizations, academics have been developing new theories to help explain the success or failure of KM implementation efforts. Finally, Part IV presents a collection of chapters that describe how KM connects with related research streams


that have their theoretical bases in other disciplines, including social psychology, organizational behavior, strategy, and organization theory. Topics include virtual teams, expert teams and teams of experts, and communities of practice.

ABOUT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge Management (KM) refers to identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete: the companys overall performance depends on the extent to which managers can mobilize all the knowledge resources held by individuals and teams and turn these resources into value-creating activities (von Krogh, 1998, p.133). KM can also be defined as performing the activities involved in discovering, capturing, sharing, and applying knowledge so as to enhance, in a cost-effective fashion, the impact of knowledge on the units goal achievement (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, and Sabherwal, 2004, p. 31). The chapters in this part of the monograph trace the origins of KM along theories of OL and organizational culture.

In Chapter 2 Individual, Group, and Organizational Learning: a Knowledge Management Perspective, Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Rajiv Sabherwal trace the foundations for the current KM literature to lie in the early discussion of OL, which is said to take place through individu-als (Simon, 1991). Without a doubt, KMS have had an impact on learning, at the individual, group, and organizational levels, and these are seen as evolutionary shifts in KM. For some OL researchers, KM is seen as a subset of OL, while KM researchers claim that KM lies beyond OL boundaries. Regardless, KMS and OL tie together via the development of the Internet and other collaboration technologies that provide opportunities for organization-wide and interorganizational socialization.

Equally important as the impact of KM in OL is the understanding about the impacts that KMS may have on the firms ability to discover, capture, and share intellectual resources. Dorothy E. Leidner and Timothy R. Kayworth address those questions in Chapter 3 Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture by examining the work related to organizational culture and KM. An understanding of organizational culture and its relationship to KM is key to understanding how firms can effectively deploy organization-wide KMS.

ABOUT THE ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

KMS have been defined as an emerging line of systems [which] target professional and manage-rial activities by focusing on creating, gathering, organizing, and disseminating an organizations knowledge as opposed to information or data (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). A framework for classification of KMS (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, and Sabherwal, 2004) suggests the follow-ing types of KMS:

1. Knowledge discovery systems create new knowledge through the implementation of intel-ligent algorithms such as data mining, and through the inference of data relationships.

2. Knowledge capture systems preserve and formalize the knowledge of experts so it can be shared with others. Knowledge capture systems formalize knowledge in models such as concept maps, which allow others to learn the domain.

3. Knowledge sharing systems organize and distribute knowledge. Knowledge repositories comprise the majority of the KMS currently in place. Several types of knowledge reposi-tories are described to support the capture and reuse of experience in different contexts.


In addition to corporate memories, there are lessons-learned systems, incident report databases, alert systems, best practices databases, and expertise locator systems that are also described as knowledge sharing systems. The differences among these systems are based on their origin (does the content originate from experience?), application (do they describe a complete process, or perhaps a task or decision?), results (do they describe failures or successes?), and orientation (do they support an organization or a whole indus-try?) (Weber, Aha, and Becerra-Fernandez, 2001). Expertise-locator systems (ELS, also called knowledge yellow pages or people-finder systems) are a special type of knowledge sharing systems that point to experts, those who have the knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez, 2006).

4. Knowledge application systems assist in solving problems. Organizations with significant intellectual capital require eliciting and capturing knowledge for reuse in solving new problems as well as recurring old problems.

In Chapter 4 Social Networks and Information Technology: Evolution and New Frontiers, Maryam Alavi and Gerald C. Kane trace the evolution of KM from the purview of two different schools: IT and social networks. This chapter traces the development of knowledge sharing systems, recognizing that IT has played an essential role in the development of knowledge sharing networks. This chapter suggests that the continued evolution of social network research on knowledge shar-ing should incorporate IT artifacts in the examination of these activities.

Ulrike Schultze in Chapter 5 The Evolution of Knowledge Management Technology: From Explicit Rules to Implicit Problems examines the evolution of IT in the support of KM and the progression of its assumptions about knowledge and knowledge work, by studying a specific as-pect of the KM movement, namely the technologies designed to solve knowledge problems. The systems described in this chapter clearly support a KM process (e.g., creating, sharing, capturing, and applying knowledge)a slice of the evolution of KM. This chapter highlights how early KMS were more focused on supporting decision-making tasks using narrow, domain-specific knowledge, whereas more recent solutions focus on the sharing of common knowledge.

Chapter 6 entitled A Four-Layer Model for IT Support of Knowledge Management by Matteo Bonifacio, Thomas Franz, and Steffen Staab, presents a review of existing knowledge sharing systems and argues that there is not one paradigm that suits all of the needs of all organizations. The authors consider KMS as enablers of organizational communication: first, through a vocabulary used to capture and organize knowledge using means such as the Semantic Web and, second, through a way of organizing access and sharing of knowledge in a distributed manner involving technologies such as distributed databases, agent-based systems, or peer-to-peerbased systems. This topic promises to be forward looking in that it presents a new approach for the design of KMS.

ABOUT THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE ORGANIZATION

The successful implementation of KMS has presented numerous challenges to KM practitioners, who initially followed a build-and-they-will-come approach to the deployment of these sys-tems, only to quickly realize that success factors in the implementation of KMS are differentiated with those associated with traditional IS. While traditional IS research has concentrated much of its efforts in understanding what factors are leading users to accepting, and thereby using, IT (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) (Davis, 1989), the successful implementation of KMS requires that its users not only effectively use such systems as in traditional IS but also


contribute to the knowledge base of such systems, thereby playing an active role in building the content of such systems. The chapters in this part describe the changing roles of KM and KM systems in organizations, and help explain the theoretical underpinnings for successful KM sys-tems implementation efforts.

In Chapter 7 Mobilizing Knowledge in a Yu-Gi-Oh! World, Youngjin Yoo argues that early conceptualizations for KM failed to provide new ideas and inspiration for management in the knowledge (postindustrial) economy, which he names the Yu-Gi-Oh! (after the popular childrens trading card game) economy. As a result, KM initiatives have not lived up to the promise of creating organizations where knowledge flows freely to support the creation of new and novel solutions. Successful KM implementations must effectively deal with key KM challenges based on the principle of interaction design.

David G. Schwartz and Dov Teeni in Chapter 8, The Impact of Computer-Mediated Com-munication on Knowledge Transfer and Organizational Form, trace the evolution and cyclical interrelationships of computer-mediated communication, knowledge transfer, and organizational form. This chapter suggests the applicability of Churchills assertion that we shape our environ-ments, then our environments shape us as it applies to how the influence of KMS into our orga-nizational environments has shifted the evolutionary course of knowledge transfer and continues to bring about a change in the form of those systems.

Chapter 9, Moving Toward a Knowledge Management Maturity Model (K3M) for Develop-ing Knowledge Management Strategy and Implementation Plans, by Jay Liebowitz and Tom Beckman, describes the importance of alignment between a KM strategy and the organizations business strategy based on the formulation of a Knowledge Management Maturity Model (K3M) as the basis for successful implementation of KMS. Much like the successful capability maturity model, the K3M blends diverse schools of thought to better structure the assessment and formula-tion of business and KM strategies and to provide a clear implementation path based on mapping stakeholder needs, competencies, and capabilities.

In Chapter 10 entitled Building Knowledge Management Systems to Improve Profits and Cre-ate Loyal Users: Lessons from the Pharmaceutical Industry, Alan Dennis, Dong-Gil Ko, and Paul F. Clay describe the many attempts that a large multinational pharmaceutical firm in the United States underwent in developing and deploying KMS in support of their field sales representa-tives. The chapter traces the early two unsuccessful attempts, leading to the successful design and implementation of the third KMS implementation. This chapter also describes measures of performance that described how this system was able to have a positive impact on the bottom line for this firm.

Finally, Patrick S.W. Fong in Chapter 11Can We Learn from Our Pastdescribes the in-fluence of KM in project management. The chapter describes characteristics of projects, features of project-based organizations, and different perspectives of projects. The chapter also observes the development of KMS in support of project management, including aspects related to project-based learning.

ABOUT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND TEAMS WITHIN AND ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS

Perhaps one of the most significant events of the late 1900s was the advent of globalization, a term used to describe the political, economic, social, and technological changes that have resulted in fundamental changes in the notions of space and time. The proliferation of the Internet has been one of the forces contributing to globalization, diminishing the significance of geographical


distance as a measure of time and space. The chapters in the fourth part describe the intersection of KM related disciplines, such as social psychology, organizational behavior, strategy, and or-ganization theory, in explaining topics such as virtual teams, expert teams and teams of experts, and communities of practice.

In Chapter 12 Managing Knowledge in Virtual Communities Within Organizations, Naren B. Peddibhotla and Mani R. Subramani describe the establishment of virtual communities, among the most successful approaches toward KM adopted within firms. Virtual communities are described as contexts where individuals within firms can come together and interact, bound by shared roles, expertise, or passion for specific topics.

Ann Majchrzak, Arvind Malhotra, and Richard John observe in Chapter 13, Dynamic Team Memory Systems: Enabling Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness in Structurally Diverse Distributed Teams, how firms are increasingly leveraging their knowledge resources through the deployment of structurally diverse distributed teams, which relate to virtual teams that are diverse in terms of geographical location, functional assignment, reporting managers, and business units. Typically co-locating such expertise may not be economically feasible; therefore, these teams must conduct their work electronically, integrating their work products through the use of virtual workspaces. This chapter describes how to effectively use virtual workspaces, proposing that teams must use dynamic team memory systems that provide the ability to (1) intelligently, continuously, and easily acquire and encode knowledge from information producers, (2) maintain integrity of knowledge over time, and (3) match patterns during search and retrieval.

In Chapter 14 Electronic Knowledge Networks: Processes and Structure, Samer Faraj, Molly McLure Wasko, and Steven L. Johnson deal with one specific type of virtual community electronic knowledge networks (EKNs), which are described as online forums that cross organi-zational boundaries. EKNs are open activity systems characterized by their virtual presence and self-organizing structure, and they focus on a shared interest or practice. Examples of EKNs include USENET newsgroups and organizational discussion groups, and their members congregate and collaborate via asynchronous technology to exchange, for example, technical advice and specific products primarily using conversations rather than documentation.

Finally, Yongsuk Kim, Sirkka Jarvenpaa, and Ann Majchrzak in Chapter 15, Ad Hoc Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Safeguards for Balancing Sharing and Protection of Knowledge, describe the importance of managing the tension between knowledge sharing and protection in ad hoc interorganizational collaboration, which is critical for interorganizational joint action and long-term learning. Because virtual interorganizational collaborations are particularly volatile and difficult to monitor, safeguards must be established a priori to manage the tension between effective knowledge sharing and the possible leakage of corporate secrets. The authors argue that safeguards must be established based on assumptions of stable and hierarchical interorganizational relations.

CONCLUSION

This research monograph covers a broad range of perspectives associated with the field of KM via the contribution of authors insights into (1) a conceptual lens for knowledge management, (2) the role of information technology in knowledge management, (3) the role of knowledge management systems in the organization, and (4) knowledge management and teams in and across organizations.

We hope that this research monograph will serve a variety of audiences. One audience is those who teach and conduct research on KM and KM systems. Researchers in the field of KM represent


a variety of disciplines: management information systems, engineering, computer science, orga-nizational behavior, strategy, psychology, sociology, and education among others. Regardless of their background disciplines, research in the field of KM has increasingly gained momentum and it impacts a variety of other research areas as can be seen in this monograph, including organizational learning, organizational culture, project management, social networks, virtual organizations, and others. The second audience is information systems researchers. The 1990s witnessed an explo-sion in the proliferation of information systems in support of the organization. In many instances, KM systems served the parochial needs of a subunit, and were not properly integrated with other business processes represented in the organizations enterprise systems. Furthermore, KM systems are differentiated with traditional information systems in that KM systems users play an active role in building the content of such systems. While traditional information systems research has concentrated much of its efforts in understanding what factors are leading users to accepting, and thereby using IT (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), the successful implementation of KM systems requires that its users not only effectively use such systems as in traditional information systems but also contribute to the knowledge base of such systems. Therefore, seeking to understand the factors that lead to the successful implementation of KM systems is an important area of research that is still in its infancy. Finally, a third audience for this book is students, from undergraduate to graduate levels. For them, they will find useful the comprehensive literature reviews that the authors who have contributed the chapters of this monograph have painstakingly constructed as they developed the topics treated here, including those related to social networks, organizational culture, organizational learning, virtual teams, and many other themes.

Together these fifteen chapters portray a varied and thought-provoking set of views, and how these views have evolved over time. In short, we hope that this monograph will become a key resource by presenting the journey of KM over time, which is significantly different than the time-bound perspectives that peer-reviewed articles typically present. The extent to which these views contribute to stimulating future research in these topics is the extent to which this endeavor to provide an evolutionary perspective of knowledge management was successful.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., and Leidner, D. 2001. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 1, 107136.

Becerra-Fernandez, I. 2006. Searching for experts on the Web: A review of contemporary expertise locator systems. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 6, 4, 333355.

Becerra-Fernandez, I.; Gonzalez, A.; and Sabherwal, R. 2004. Knowledge Management: Challenges, Solu-tions, and Technologies. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technol-ogy. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319340.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge-integration. Organization Science, 5, 1, 1437.

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Keoan.Simon, H.A. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 1, 125134.. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Weber, R.; Aha, D.W.; and Becerra-Fernandez, I. 2001. Intelligent lessons learned systems. Expert Systems

with Applications, 20, 1, 1734.

PART I

A CONCEPTUAL LENS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

13

ChaptEr 2

INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

A Knowledge Management Perspective

irma BECErra-fErnandEZ and rajiV saBhErwal

Abstract: This chapter traces the field of knowledge management (KM) along the discipline of organizational learning (OL). Organizational learning theories recognize the importance of cognitive development and the value of learning as an organizational-level phenomenon, which is synergistic and not simply the cumulative result of each members learning. However, OL takes place through individuals and the positive and negative outcomes that their members encounter from their behaviors. In this chapter, we discuss some of the changes that have oc-curred over the past three decades in the field of KM, highlighting how the field has evolved to the current state and some of the ongoing changes. In doing so, we examine how the interplay between information and communication technologies and KM processes (including various social and structural mechanisms) contributes to learning activities at the individual, group, and organizational levels. In short, the goals of KM and OL are intertwined: KM systems sup-port the goals of learning at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Also, KM systems and OL tie together via the development of the Internet and other collaboration technologies that provide opportunities for organization-wide socialization. Finally, KM systems support the processes of perspective making and perspective taking at the individual, group, and orga-nizational levels.

Keywords: Knowledge Management (KM), Knowledge Management Systems (KMS), Organiza-tional Learning (OL), KM Processes

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge management systems (KMS) support the discovery, capture, sharing, and application of organizational knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, and Sabherwal, 2004). Learning how to manage an organizations knowledge provides numerous benefits, including leveraging core business competencies, accelerating innovation and time to market, improving cycle times and decision making, strengthening organizational commitment, and building sustainable competi-tive advantage (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Sabherwal and Sabherwal, 2005). Furthermore, the effects of knowledge management (KM), which is defined as performing the activities involved in discovering, capturing, sharing, and applying knowledge so as to enhance, in a cost-effective fashion, the impact of knowledge on the units goal achievement (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez,

14 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

and Sabherwal, 2004, p. 31), progress from individuals to groups and then to organizational and interorganizational levels.

Knowledge is said to reside in people in all organizations. This is most clearly evident in profes-sional service firms, such as consulting or law firms, where considerable knowledge resides in the minds of individual members of the firm (Argote and Ingram, 2000). KM can enhance employees learning and exposure to the latest knowledge in their fields. For example, in preparing a report on lessons learned from a project, consultants document the tacit knowledge they acquire during the project. Individuals embarking on later projects could then acquire the knowledge gained by the earlier team by reading this report and thereby reexperiencing what others have gone through.

Considerable knowledge resides in groups because of the relationships among the members of the group. When individuals have worked together for a long time, they instinctively know each others strengths, weaknesses, expertise, and preferences and recognize aspects that need to be communicated as well as those that can be taken for granted (Skyrme, 2000). Consequently, groups form beliefs about what works well and what does not, and this knowledge is over and above the knowledge residing in each individual member. Thus, the collective knowledge is synergistic, and greater than the sum of each individuals knowledge. Communities of practice illustrate such embedding of knowledge within groups.

The impact of KM at the organizational level has been clearly highlighted in some recent stud-ies (e.g., Hult, 1995; Slater and Narver, 1995; Hult et al., 2000). Organizational learning (OL) has been found to enhance firms innovativeness and capacity for adaptation (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Firms with a greater learning also possess a higher capacity to innovate, which in the presence of adequate resources, results in increased competitive advantage and performance for the firm (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Finally, OL can translate into business agility, by positively influenc-ing business processes, such as the cycle time of the purchasing process (Hult et al., 2000), and eventually into superior stock market returns (Sabherwal and Sabherwal, 2005).

Rapid changes in the field of KM have largely resulted from the dramatic progress in the field of information and communication technologies (ICT) (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). Also, experience with KM has enabled organizations to develop better social and structural mechanisms for managing knowledge and to improve the deployment of existing mechanisms. These develop-ments have enabled organizations to develop KMS that best leverage KM mechanisms by deploying sophisticated technologies. Consequently, rather than using ICT and social mechanisms indepen-dently for different KM tasks, organizations utilize ICT and social mechanisms in an increasingly synergistic fashion. KMS combine a variety of KM mechanisms and technologies to support the KM processes of knowledge discovery, capture, sharing, and application.

In this chapter, we discuss some of the changes that have occurred over the last three decades in the field of KM, highlighting how the field has evolved to the current state and some of the ongoing changes. In doing so, we examine how the interplay between ICT and KM processes (including various social and structural mechanisms) contributes to learning activities at the indi-vidual, group, and organizational levels.

EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

In this section we describe how the field of KM has evolved to the current state. In particular, we focus on how the interplay between increased development in ICT and social mechanisms supports the activities of learning organizations. We also present perspectives that relate KM to OL. Finally, we discuss the shift from perspective taking or perspective making to perspective taking and per-spective making; and the increased embeddedness of KM across organizational processes.

INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 15

From KM Mechanisms OR ICT to KM Mechanisms AND ICT

The ICT have provided a major impetus to KM by enabling the implementation of KMS. The ICT that support KM include artificial intelligence technologies encompassing those used for knowledge acquisition and case-based reasoning systems, discussion groups, computer-based simulations, databases, decision support systems, enterprise resource planning systems, expert systems, management information systems, expertise locator systems, videoconferencing and information repositories encompassing best practices databases, and lessons learned systems. In addition, social mechanisms can also promote and enable KM. They may or may not utilize technology, but they do involve some kind of organizational arrangement or social or structural means of facilitating KM. Examples of KM mechanisms include on-the-job training, learning by observation, face-to-face meetings, cooperative projects across departments, mentoring for knowledge sharing, and employee rotation across departments. We call the applications resulting from such synergy between the latest technologies and social mechanisms knowledge management systems. KMS and the role of ICT on its evolution over time, including how this development has been synergistic with KM mechanisms, is discussed further this chapter.

From Organizational Learning to Knowledge Management

The foundations for the current KM literature lie in the early discussion of OL (e.g., Argyris, 1977; Argyris and Schon, 1978; Duncan and Weiss, 1979; Hedberg, 1981). Organizational learning takes place through individuals (Simon, 1991), but it is not simply the cumulative result of each members learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). According to Simon (1991):

All learning takes place inside our heads; an organization learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members, or (b) by ingesting new members who have knowledge the organization didnt already have. (p. 125)

Furthermore, what members of an organization know may be related, and what individuals learn depends on what they already know (Simon, 1991). Organizational learning requires the transmission of information from one member to another; therefore, learning is a social phenom-enon (Simon, 1991). According to March (1991):

Two distinctive features of the social context are considered. The first is the mutual learning of an organization and the individuals in it. Organizations store knowledge in their proce-dures, norms, rules, and forms. They accumulate such knowledge over time, learning from their members. At the same time, individuals in an organization are socials to organizational beliefs. (p. 73)

In essence, learning is viewed as an organizational-level phenomenon (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Huber, 1991). According to Hedberg (1981):

Organizations do not have brains, but they have cognitive systems and memories. As in-dividuals develop their personalities, personal habits, and beliefs over time, organizations develop worldviews and ideologies. Members come and go, and leadership changes, but organizations memories preserve certain behaviors, mental maps, norms, and values over time. (p. 6)


Organizations learn through the positive and negative outcomes that their members encounter from their behaviors. The amount of such experiential learning depends on the extent to which each specific individual learns and the extent to which individual learning gets embedded in orga-nizational memory (Argyris and Schon, 1978). The eventual impact of OL is on the organization, especially when behavioral changes produced from learning are incorporated (Slater and Narver, 1995; Hurley and Hult, 1998).

Organization learning may be viewed from two broad perspectives (Weick, 1991). Accord-ing to one perspective, OL is said to occur when new knowledge is generated, even if this new knowledge does not produce any change in behavior (Duncan and Weiss, 1979; Huber, 1991). For example, Huber states: An organization learns if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the organization (p. 89). According to the second perspective, cognitive development is necessary but not sufficient for OL; instead, according to this perspective, OL requires behavioral development as well (Argyris, 1977; Stata, 1989). For example, Argyris states: An organization may be said to learn to the extent that it identifies and corrects errors (p. 113). However, both these perspectives on OL theories recognize the importance of cognitive development.

A review of citation patterns of published KM works within the 10-year period of 1991 to 2001 reveals that the five most central literature domains identified in KM are knowledge creation and epistemology, OL, evolutionary economics, intellectual capital, and organizational capabilities and competencies (Ponzi, 2002, 2004). The literature for KM and OL started to converge around 1996, when the literature began to distinguish between the two notions and to include them both within the same paper (Ponzi, 2002). Table 2.1 presents a summary of the top citations in the KM literature with a focus on OL. Although this table does not represent a comprehensive review of the literature for the intersection of these two domains, it serves to compare and contrast their emphasis. Organizational learning and KM are both processes through which the valuable resource of knowledge is changed (Vera and Crossan, 2003). The relation between OL and KM is implicit in the discussion of organizations as distributed knowledge systems (Tsoukas, 1996), streams of knowledge (e.g., Van Krogh, Roos, and Slocum, 1994), and systems of distributed cognition (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Weick and Roberts, 1993), wherein individuals act autonomously while understanding their interdependence with others. For some OL researchers, KM is seen as a subset of OL (Fulmer, Gibbs, and Keysl, 1998; Ponzi, 2002), while KM researchers claim that KM lies beyond OL boundaries (Nevis, DiBella, and Gould, 1995; Ponzi, 2002).

However, a focus on KM implies a more prescriptive view than a focus on OL. In addition, the literature on OL and KM agrees that these processes may lead to cognitive development, which is usually followed by behavioral change, and subsequently produces organizational impacts. Fur-thermore, these theories agree that KM can produce impacts at various levels, including impacts on the overall organization, with learning originating at the individual level, and then moving up through groups, and then to the overall organization. Nonaka (1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) makes a connection between OL and KM, when he describes organizational knowledge creation as a spiral process, which starts at the individual level, expanding to the group, and the organizational levels. He contends that only individuals can create knowledge, and the interactions among individuals are essential to develop organizational knowledge. In his view, organizational knowledge creation is a process that amplifies the individuals knowledge, as original ideas emanate from autonomous individuals, diffuse within the team, and then become organizational ideals (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, p. 76).

Despite the similarities between the literature on OL and the literature on KM, the shift from OL to KM has been accompanied by three significant developments. First, the OL literature fo-

17

Tabl

e 2.

1

Top

Cita

tions

in th

e K

now

ledg

e M

anag

emen

t Lite

ratu

re w

ith a

Foc

us o

n O

rgan

izat

iona

l Lea

rnin

g

Auth

or/R

ankin

g*Ci

tatio

nCo

ntrib

utio

nN

onak

a and

Take

uch

i (199

5)/1

The

Kno

wle

dge

Cre

atin

g C

ompa

ny:

How

Jap

anes

e C

ompa

nies

Cre

ate

the

Dyn

amic

s of

Inn

ovat

ion.

New

York

: Oxfo

rd U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss

Fou

r m

ode

s o

f kno

wle

dge

conv

ers

ion

(socia

lizati

on,

exte

rna

lizat

ion,

inte

rna

lizat

ion,

an

d co

mbi

natio

n). Sp

iral o

f kn

owle

dge

cre

atio

n: fro

m th

e in

divid

ual,

to th

e gr

ou

p, to

the

org

aniza

tion,

to in

tero

rgan

izatio

n.Se

nge

(1990

)/4T

he F

ifth

Dis

cipl

ine:

The

Art

and

Pra

ctic

e of

the

Le

arni

ng O

rgan

izat

ion.

N

ew Y

ork

: Dou

bled

ayAn

org

aniza

tion

must

pra

ctice

five

disc

iplin

es to

rid

itsel

f of

lear

nin

g di

sabi

lities

: a s

hare

visi

on, p

erso

nal m

aste

ry, st

rong

men

tal m

odel

s, gr

oup

(team

) lear

nin

g, a

nd s

yste

m th

inkin

g.Le

onar

d-Ba

rton

(1995

)/5W

ells

prin

gs o

f K

now

ledg

e. B

osto

n: H

arva

rd

Busi

ness

Sch

ool P

ress

Man

ager

s m

ust

thin

k co

nst

antly

abo

ut th

e po

tent

ial

know

ledg

e-bu

ildin

g im

pact

of e

very

tech

nolo

gy-re

late

d de

cisio

n th

ey m

ade

. Th

ose

decis

ions

mu

st o

rigin

ate

in a

n

un

ders

tand

ing

of t

he lo

ng-te

rm,

syst

emic,

a

nd

peop

le-b

ased

n

atu

re o

f tec

hnol

ogica

l adv

an

tage

.

Argy

ris a

nd

Scho

n (19

78)/7

Org

aniz

atio

nal L

earn

ing:

A T

heor

y of

Act

ion

App

roac

h. R

eadi

ng: A

ddiso

n-W

esl

eySi

ngle

- an

d do

uble

-loop

theo

ry.

Hub

er (1

991)/

10O

rgan

izatio

nal l

earn

ing:

Th

e co

ntri

butin

g pr

oces

ses

and

the

liter

atu

res.

O

rgan

izat

ion

Sci

ence

, 2

(1):

881

15

Eva

luat

es o

rgan

izatio

nal l

earn

ing

liter

atu

re a

nd

deta

ils fo

ur

con

stru

cts

that

are

mo

st o

ften

linke

d w

ith o

rgan

izatio

nal

lear

nin

g: kn

owle

dge

acq

uisit

ion,

info

rma

tion

dist

ribu

tion,

in

form

atio

n in

terp

reta

tion,

an

d o

rgan

izatio

nal m

em

ory

.

Weick

(199

5)/17

Sen

sem

akin

g in

Org

aniz

atio

ns.

Thou

sand

Oak

s: Sa

ge P

ublic

atio

nTh

e n

atu

re a

nd

prop

ertie

s o

f se

nse

ma

king

in o

rgan

izatio

ns:

an

on

goin

g pr

oces

s o

f cre

atio

n o

f re

alit

y w

hen

peop

le m

ake

re

trosp

ectiv

e s

en

se o

f the

situ

atio

ns in

whi

ch th

ey fi

nd

them

selve

s.

Sim

on (1

976)/

22A

dmin

istr

ativ

e B

ehav

ior.

New

Yo

rk: T

he F

ree

Pre

ssLe

arn

ing

take

s pl

ace

in in

divid

uals.

O

rgan

izatio

ns le

arn

in

two

way

s: (a)

by th

e le

arn

ing

of i

ts m

em

bers

or

(b)

by in

gest

ing

new

me

mbe

rs w

ho h

ave

kno

wle

dge

the

org

aniza

tion

did

no

t hav

e p

revi

ousl

y.

(con

tinue

d)

18

Brow

n (1

991)/

23O

rgan

izatio

nal l

earn

ing

an

d co

mm

un

ities

of p

ract

ice:

Tow

ard

a u

nifie

d vi

ew o

f wo

rkin

g, le

arn

ing,

an

d in

nova

tion.

O

rgan

izat

ion

Sci

ence

, 2

(1): 4

057

Know

ledg

e sh

arin

g be

havi

or a

nd

cultu

re is

a fo

rm o

f pr

ofe

ssio

nal c

om

pete

nce.

Co

mm

un

ities

of p

ract

ice

build

tru

st

an

d tra

nsf

er

know

-how

, w

hich

in tu

rn c

rea

te o

rgan

izatio

nal

valu

e.Sp

ende

r (19

96)/2

5Co

mpe

titive

adv

an

tage

from

taci

t kno

wle

dge?

Un

pack

ing

the

con

cept

an

d its

stra

tegi

c im

plica

tions

.

In B

. M

osin

geon

an

d A.

Ed

mon

son

(eds.)

, O

rgan

izat

iona

l Lea

rnin

g an

d C

ompe

titiv

e A

dvan

tage

(pp

. 56

73).

Lo

ndon

: Sag

e.

Stra

tegi

c im

plica

tions

of t

he p

ropo

sitio

n th

at ta

cit k

now

ledg

e is

at t

he ro

ot o

f co

mpe

titive

adv

an

tage

. A

fou

r-fo

ld ty

polo

gy

is s

ugg

este

d th

at d

istin

guish

es th

ree

type

s o

f tac

it kn

owle

dge

from

obje

ctive

kno

wle

dge:

co

nsc

ious

pra

ctic

al

know

ledg

e, a

uto

mat

ic p

ract

ical

kno

wle

dge,

a

nd

colle

ctive

pr

act

ical

kno

wle

dge.

Mar

ch (1

991)

Expl

oratio

n a

nd

expl

oita

tion

in o

rgan

izatio

nal

lear

nin

g. O

rgan

izat

ion

Sci

ence

, 2

(1): 7

187

Expl

ora

tion

an

d ex

ploi

tatio

n o

f org

aniza

tiona

l lea

rnin

g a

re

ess

en

tial f

or

org

aniza

tions

. Ad

aptiv

e p

roce

sses

, by

refin

ing

expl

oita

tion

mo

re r

api

dly

than

exp

lora

tion,

are

like

ly to

be

com

e e

ffect

ive in

the

shor

t ru

n b

ut s

elf-

dest

ruct

ive in

the

long

run

.

Gar

vin

(1993

)Bu

ildin

g a

lear

nin

g o

rgan

izatio

n. H

arva

rd B

usin

ess

Rev

iew

, Ju

lyAu

gust

: 78

91D

iscu

sses

ski

lls th

at a

re c

hara

cter

istic

of l

earn

ing

org

aniza

tions

: sys

tem

atic

prob

lem

so

lvin

g, e

xper

imen

tatio

n,

lear

nin

g fro

m th

eir o

wn

exp

erie

nce,

be

st p

ract

ices

, a

nd

tran

sfe

rrin

g kn

owle

dge.

Levi

tt a

nd

Mar

ch (1

988)

Org

aniza

tiona

l lea

rnin

g. A

nnua

l Rev

iew

of

Soc

iolo

gy,

14: 3

193

40O

rgan

izatio

nal d

ecisi

ons

depe

nd o

n r

ule

s a

nd

org

aniza

tiona

l ro

utin

es th

at e

nco

de o

rgan

izatio

nal e

xper

ienc

es a

nd

solu

tions

.

Sche

in (1

985)

Org

aniz

atio

nal C

ultu

re a

nd L

eade

rshi

p. Sa

n Fr

anci

sco:

Jo

ssey

-Bas

sD

escr

ibed

org

aniza

tiona

l cu

lture

as

shar

ed a

ssu

mpt

ions

by

a g

rou

p, w

hich

were

lear

ne

d a

s th

e o

rgan

izatio

n so

lves

prob

lem

s, w

hich

lead

to e

xter

na

l ada

ptat

ion

an

d in

tern

al

inte

gra

tion.

Al

so li

nks

org

aniza

tiona

l cu

lture

to th

e le

arn

ing

org

aniza

tion.

Scho

n (19

83)

The

Refl

ectiv

e P

ract

ition

er:

How

Pro

fess

iona

ls

Thi

nk in

Act

ion.

Lo

ndon

: Mar

aca

Te

mpl

e Sm

ithTh

e m

ost

cru

cial

co

mpe

tenc

e fo

r a

ll pr

ofe

ssio

nals

is

re

flect

ion,

in

-act

ion,

a

nd

a

bout

-act

ion.

Th

is is

the

kn

owin

g-in

-act

ion

pr

oces

s, im

porta

nt fo

r co

ntin

uo

us

impr

ove

me

nt.

Tabl

e 2.

1 (c

ontin

ued)

Auth

or/R

ankin

g*Ci

tatio

nCo

ntrib

utio

n

19

Kim

(199

3)Th

e lin

k be

twe

en

indi

vidua

l an

d o

rgan

izatio

nal

lear

nin

g. S

loan

Man

agem

ent

Rev

iew

, Fa

ll: 37

50

Theo

ry a

bout

the

proc

ess

thro

ugh

whi

ch in

divid

ual l

earn

ing

adv

an

ces

org

aniza

tiona

l lea

rnin

g.D

e G

eus

(1997

)T

he L

ivin

g C

ompa

ny:

Hab

its f

or S

urvi

val i

n a

Turb

ulen

t B

usin

ess

Env

ironm

ent.

Bost

on: H

arva

rd

Busi

ness

Sch

ool P

ress

Res

earc

h o

n o

rgan

izatio

nal l

onge

vity

pla

ces

org

aniza

tiona

l cu

lture

as

on

e o

f the

key

co

mpo

nent

s to

co

mpe

titive

st

reng

th.

Nev

is e

t al.

(1995

)Un

ders

tand

ing

org

aniza

tions

as

lear

nin

g sy

stem

s. S

loan

Man

agem

ent

Rev

iew

, Win

ter:

738

4Fr

am

ewo

rk fo

r ex

am

inin

g a

n o

rgan

izatio

ns a

bility

to le

arn

. Ba

sed

on

7 le

arn

ing

orie

ntat

ions

an

d 10

faci

litat

ing

fact

ors

or

proc

esse

s.Cy

ert

and

Mar

ch (1

963)

A B

ehav

iora

l The

ory

of t

he F

irm. En

glew

oo

d Cl

iffs,

NJ:

Pren

tice-

Hal

l.O

rgan

izatio

nal l

earn

ing

is a

n a

dapt

ive p

roce

ss in

whi

ch

goal

s a

nd

proc

edur

es d

irect

the

org

aniza

tion

to fi

nd

solu

tions

to p

robl

em th

at a

dapt

ed to

thei

r ow

n e

xper

ienc

es.

Fiol

an

d Ly

les

(1985

)O

rgan

izatio

nal l

earn

ing.

A

cade

my

of M

anag

emen

t R

evie

w, 10

(4): 8

038

13Lo

we

r-le

vel v

ers

us

high

er-le

vel l

earn

ing.

Dod

gson

, 199

1Te

chno

logy

, le

arn

ing,

tech

nolo

gy s

trate

gy

and

com

petit

ive p

ress

ures

. B

ritis

h Jo

urna

l of

Man

agem

ent,

2/3:

13

214

9

Tact

ical

ve

rsu

s st

rate

gic

lear

nin

g.

Levi

ntha

l and

Mar

ch (1

993)

The

myo

pia

of l

earn

ing.

S

trat

egic

Man

agem

ent

Jour

nal,

14: 9

511

2Tw

o m

ech

anis

ms

of o

rgan

izatio

nal l

earn

ing:

si

mpl

ificat

ion

(simp

lify ex

perie

nce

an

d m

inim

ize in

tera

ctio

ns) a

nd

spec

ializ

atio

n (le

arnin

g te

nds

to fo

cus

atte

ntio

n a

nd

na

rrow

ex

perie

nce).

O

rgan

izatio

ns c

ode

resu

lts in

to s

ucc

ess

es

an

d fa

ilure

s a

nd

deve

lop

idea

s a

bout

thei

r ca

use

s.

Sour

ce:

Ada

pted

from

Pon

zi, 2

002.

*R

anki

ngs s

peci

fied

only

for t

he o

rgan

izat

iona

l lea

rnin

g au

thor

s in

the

top

25 m

ost

cite

d au

thor

s in

the

know

ledg

e m

anag

emen

t lite

ratu

re a

ccord

ing

to

Ponz

i, 20

02.


cused more on the creation of new knowledge and its transfer within the organization, whereas the KM literature explicitly recognizes the importance of other processes, namely knowledge capture (through externalization and internalization) and knowledge application (through direction and routines) (Becerra-Fernandez, Gonzalez, and Sabherwal, 2004). When the OL literature considers the use of knowledge acquired through learning, the knowledge is utilized by the individual or group that acquires the knowledge. In contrast, according to the KM literature, knowledge could be utilized by individuals who do not themselves have that knowledge (Grant, 1996b). This is reflected in the notion of knowledge substitution, which is implemented through directions and routines, and is a key characteristic of the knowledge-based theory of the firm (Conner and Pra-halad, 1996; Grant, 1996a, 1996b).

Second, the OL literature focused more on the social aspects of KM, focusing on individuals within an organization maximizing their individual potential through a process of self-develop-ment, assisted by the organization. The KM literature increasingly recognizes the importance of individuals as well as their networks within and across organizations, seeking overall gains for the organization, through exploiting the individuals ability to learn from past experiences or lessons.

Finally, whereas the OL literature focused on social and structural aspects, the KM literature explicitly recognizes the importance of ICT in knowledge creation, sharing, and application pro-cesses (Sabherwal

Documents

Knowledge Management