Knowledge Management Systems

What is a KMS?

Most Organisations have information systems in place (with or without IT support) that are designed to disseminate information within their Organisations. These systems were generally referred to as Management information systems (MIS). However, in the late early 90’s more and more Organisations adopted Information technology to achieve competitive advantage and so specific information systems emerged with focuses either on management activities or business processes. Such Information Systems are the Decision support systems (DSS), Executive support systems (ESS), Executive Information Systems (EIS) and Enterprise Systems. An emerging need for Organisations to capture and retain its knowledge, which forms a large part of its intangible assets, has given birth to a line of systems referred to as Knowledge management systems (KMS) (Alavi M. & Leidner D.E. 1999).

A Knowledge Management System is one that enables an Organisation to efficiently manage its processes for capturing and applying knowledge and expertise (or forte). This system should be able to capture all essential knowledge that may be used to improve the organisation’s business processes and make it available as and when needed. The system should also have a link to other sources of knowledge which may be external. (Laudon K.C. & Laudon J.P., 2007)

Types of KMS

There are three major types of KMS which can also be further broken down into more specialized types (Laudon K.C. & Laudon J.P., 2007)

• Enterprise-Wide KMS
• Knowledge work systems
• Intelligent techniques

KMS in the Organisation

Several research and studies have been carried out on the use of knowledge management systems in an Organisation. Alavi M & Leidner D.E. (1999) carried out a survey on over 190 companies some of who already had KMS and others who were still developing their KMS. The study showed that when asked what they want Knowledge to do for them, their responses could be categorized into three broad groups namely:

Information based knowledge: Internal (clients, competitors and suppliers) and External (financial, HR, product information)

Technology based Knowledge: Intranets, internets, e-mail, Global IT infrastructure etc.

Culture based Knowledge: (also termed organisational/Structure) Includes; Team work, ethics, organisational culture etc.

The survey showed that managers within Organisations believe that in developing a KMS, all three classifications must work together. Some managers had the opinion that the technology component makes up for 20% of the whole KMS, focusing on cultural learning within the Organisation.

Organisational knowledge is viewed as a key resource and a tool to gain advantage. Therefore, the general objective of KMS is to help an Organisation achieve competitive advantage. If an Organisation is able to create transfer and store its knowledge and operational efficiencies, this is knowledge which its competitors cannot easily emulate and therefore can give advantage to the organisation over others.

Role of IT in supporting KMS
The act of knowledge management in Organisation is not a new concept. Manufacturing companies in the past practised this by people applying new knowledge to manufacturing processes. What is new is the use of IT in Knowledge management. Going by the three broad categories identified in the last section, we see that IT (Technology based knowledge) has a part to play in a complete KMS.

The common technologies being used in KMS today are: Browser, Electronic mail (e-mail), search/retrieval tools, information repositories, videoconferencing, external server services and WWW server. For now, the intranet seems to be the most used technology in knowledge management, followed closely by e-mail and search/retrieval tools (Alavi M. & Leidner D.E. 1999).

The Knowledge management value chain by Laudon & Laudon (2007) shows a flow of knowledge which includes information systems activities in addition to management and organisational activities. This value chain says that the activities within a KMS can be categorised into four: Acquire, Store, Disseminate and Apply. It further breaks downs those business activities and processes that make up the 3 broad categories refered to earlier in this post.

References
Alavi M. & Leidner D.E. 1999. Knowledge Management Systems: Emerging Views and Practices from the Field. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE

Laudon K.C. and Laudon J.P. (2006). Management information systems : managing the digital firm(10th edition). New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Knowledge, Information and Data (K.I.D.)

The most featured terms in KM are Knowledge, Information and Data. These terms all have to do with the cycle or science of information and are often misinterpreted.

A comparative analysis carried out by Stenmark, D. (2002) indicates that though it has been established that data, information and knowledge are not the same, there still isn’t a very clear line between information and knowledge.

The following definitions of K.I.D. make sense to me:

Data is the representation of facts, concepts, or instructions in a formalized manner which is suitable for interpretation, or processing. It is any representation such as quantities or characters to which meaning is or MIGHT be assigned. Telecommunications’ (1996)

Information is defined by Wikipedia (2009) as data that has been processed into a format that is understandable by its intended audience

Knowledge is information in action or information transformed into the capability for effective action. Taking action and building experience turns information into knowledge. R.G. Smith (2008)

My understanding
In applying these definitions to an organisation, I would use my bank as illustration.

At the end of each day, there is a batch print-out which is a long sheet of paper containing transaction codes, posting tellers, account numbers, amounts posted etc,. This document is data to a relationship manager because, it is a representation of facts and meaning has not been assigned to it; however, there is the ability to assign meaning to it.

When this data categorised by account managers, a manager is then able to make meaning of the data because he can now see all accounts under him and see amounts withdrawn and deposited in a day. This meaningful data has now become Information because it is now understandable by the recipient (the client manager)

An analysis of this information may indicate that deposits reduced drastically from the previous day. Based on this information, the manager would put measures in place to find out the reason and take decisive action if need be. This is Knowledge.

Knowledge vs Information vs Data
The most common view of the relationship between these terms by Knowledge management scholars is that a linear relationship exists which starts with Data leading to Information and information to Knowledge (Nissen, 2000; Davenport and Prusak, 1998).

However, contrary views exist which argue that Knowledge is a requirement for data and information and thus the relationship between data, information and knowledge is actually interwoven in a complicated manner and therefore is more complicated than the linear representation (Tuomi, I., 1999)

The question is; Is the relationship between data, information and Knowledge that simple?

I do agree that Data CAN produce information, and Information CAN produce Knowledge. I also agree with Tuomi (1999) and others in his school that Knowledge is required to distinguish data from information in the first place. After all, several definitions of knowledge indicate that it resides within the mind of someone. This means that knowledge should be present first even before data and information.

Based on this, neither a linear or cyclic relationship may be accurate to express the relationship between KID. An interesting viewpoint on the hierarchy of knowledge is by Hicks R.C, Dattero R and Galup S.D (2006) who came up with the five tiers of knowledge to include both personal knowledge(knowledge contained in the mind of one person) and codified knowledge (knowledge that has been captured and may be shared) knowledge.

My viewpoint
Using the bank again as an Organisation for illustration, a relationship manager knows the difference between data and information because he has acquired knowledge to do so. This knowledge could be from what he’s been taught or from his experiences. This same manager, from his knowledge can produce facts which can be termed as data or meaningful data which can prove to be information for some. However, if knowledge were absent, none of it would be possible.

Therefore, knowledge is the most important of these three terms.

References:
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Hicks, R. C., Dattero R. and Galup S.D., 2006 The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 19-31

Nissen, M.E. (2000), An extended model of knowledge-flow dynamics, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8, pp. 251-66

Stenmark, D. 2002 Information vs. Knowledge: The Role of intranets in Knowledge Management, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.

Tuomi, I. 1999, Data is More Than Knowledge: Implications of the Reversed Knowledge Hierarchy for Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No.3, 1999, pp. 107-121

Online references;
Telecommunications (1996): Glossary of Telecommunication Terms, Federal Standard 1037c, Available online: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/ [accessed January 25, 2009]

Wikipedia (2009) Available online: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/data, [accessed February 2, 2009]

R.G. Smith and Associates (2008) Resources, Available Online: http://www.rgsmithassociates.com/Glossary.htm, [accessed January 26, 2009]

Organisation vs. Networks vs. Communities of Practice

In this post are the results of my research on the meanings of the terms; Organisation, Networks and Community of Practice, the relationship between these terms if any, and my application of the terms as understood.

Organisation
It may be hard to provide one uniform definition of an organisation. My opinion of a simple yet complete definition states that an Organisation
“... is a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, which controls its own performance, and which has a boundary separating it from its environment” (Wikipedia, 2009)

Some key words stand out for me in this definition and these words make up the essential elements of an Organisation: Social arrangement, Goal and Controlled Performance. More here on types of organisation.

My Group as an Organisation
A requirement in my Knowledge Management Module is to form Organisations. Let’s look at my organisation called The Eagles and made up of Francis, Christos, Yemi, Azam, Joanna and I.

Social arrangement?
We went through introductions and got to know each other, discovering backgrounds, experiences and expectations. We created a network through our individual blogs. We meet at least once a week.

Purpose or goal?
The goal of the group is to gain and apply knowledge of Knowledge management strategies and to excel in the module. To meet this goal, a strategy to share individual knowledge as well as support members through comments and critique has been put in place.

Controlled performance?
A leader was selected to offer direction plus each individual in the team has a responsibility which is controlled by deadlines and checked by other members.


Social Networks
A simple definition of a Network which made sense to me is that it is a group of people with similar interest who interact for mutual assistance (The free dictionary, 2009)

A network in an organisation will create the ability for individuals within the Organisation to share up to date ideas and information. Social networks allow a user to create, join and maintain a networks of close friends, business associates or other individuals with common interests for social or professional reasons. (O’Muchu et al 2004). A social network could simply be close friends who know each other through friends.

In recent years and with the dominance of the internet and the World Wide Web, ability to send and retrieve information across geographical borders has changed the paradigm of networks. The possibility of a borderless community now exists. E.gs of online social networks are; Facebook, myspace, Linkedin, Tribe, Cyworld and an endless list of others.

My understanding
Social networks have existed long before the well known virtual platforms we have today, an illustration of this is the social networking system which exists in the some of the major tribes in Nigeria. It is called the age grade system. A range of three to five years is what often marks the boundary for each age grade. Members offer mutual assistance and share ideas towards making the society better. There is also a feeling of belonging for the individuals. This social network is a very strong one and is maintained through out the lives of the members.

Communities of Practice
From my understanding of networks, it is possible to have a network of individuals who share a practice but are not known to each other? Furthermore, where part of this network of practice begin to develop tighter clusters and start to reciprocate the sharing of ideas then it is referred to as a Community of practice (Stenmark D. 2002).

A Community of Practice according to Wenger E. (1998) defines itself along 3 main dimensions which are; What it is about (a joint enterprise), How it functions (the relationship that bind members to a social entity) and what capability it has produced (shared communal resources which members will develop over time. A CoP is different from a social network or a geographical community because neither has to do with a shared practice, which is the core of a CoP.

Illustration of theory
Wenger, E (1998) states that a CoP has three essential components which are Domain, the Community and the Practice.

To illustrate this, I would use Goal keepers in football clubs as an example of a CoP. Goal keepers from European clubs meet once a month to interact and share ideas.

The domain here represents the shared interest, which is goal keeping, in football and this is the identity of the Community. Consenting to membership of this community by each goal keeper indicates commitment to the Community.

The Community is the actual meeting, coming together, sharing experiences, knowledge and ideas on the interest. In the community, relationships are built and members can engage in joint activities and learn from each other. Communication by e-mail or other non-physical form does not constitute a CoP. It the actual interaction once a month of these goal keepers that is important.

The Practice means that this shared interest is practiced by members. Therefore, individuals who are not goal keepers but come together to discuss issues in goalkeeping do not constitute a CoP. The actual goal keepers practice this interest in their clubs and therefore can be said to be a CoP.


Relationship between Org, net & CoP
Can these three work to the benefit of each other? work for or against each other? If CoPs have been proven to facilitate learning and sharing of ideas and skills, can organisations take advantage of CoPs that may exist within or even outside of its boundary? Can social networks also enhance organisational learning? We’ll find out in a minute.

CoPs can and do exist within an Organisation and because they are bound by the practice and not the organisation affiliate, they can cut across Organisations and business units. In today’s organisation, there is no doubt as to the importance of knowledge. After all, “Knowledge is power” quoting the words of Sir Francis Bacon. A CoP provides an ideal platform for learning and knowledge

Illustration of theory
using a scenario where a CoP exists within an Organisation, I would use my organisation as an illustration. Guaranty trust bank (GTB) is a bank made up teams divided into marketing and operations teams. Each team is made up of 3 to 4 officers including a team leader. GTB uses a local area network (social network) which forms a network of all staff and teams within the bank. Through this network, staff within some marketing teams decide to meet every Friday to share experiences and ideas gained from their daily activities (CoP created), ranging from how to manage a difficult team leader, marketing experiences, difficult customer issues. Member share experiences which resulted in signing on major accounts or tips on how similar situations were handled. Knowledge shared within this CoP will then filter back to member teams and subsequently on to other teams thereby transforming the organisation as a whole.




Lesser E.L. and Storck J (2001) found that Organizational performance was influenced by activities of CoPs in the following areas:

Decreasing the learning curve of new employees:
Let’s assume a new officer is assigned to one of the units and joins the existing CoP, it will be easy for him to settle nicely into their new role and consequently become more productive quicker than if there was no such CoP.

Responding more rapidly to customer needs and inquiries: CoP members in GTB may provide the best answers to client issues. Officers who have encountered similar issues will gain the knowledge to solve the issue thereby responding to the client’s need quickly.

Reducing rework and preventing “reinvention of the wheel”:Learning from shared experiences within the CoP will ensure that teams do not make mistakes that have already been made by other teams who have members in the CoP.

Spawning new ideas for products and services:The CoP in GTB can serve as a platform for innovative ideas. When members share their different views on a common issue, it enables the emergence of innovative ideas on the bank’s products and services.

Conclusion
It is clear from the above how well an Organisation can perform giving the existence of a social network and an active CoP. Every Organisation that supports and stimulates CoP and social networks within it will enhance organisational learning and competitive advantage consequently.


References:
Lesser E.L. and Storck J. 2001. Communities of practice and organisational performance. IBM system journal, Knowledge management 40 (4) 2001.

O’Murchu I., Breslin J.G and Stefan Decker. 1984, Online Social and Business Networking Communities DERI – Digital Enterprise Research Institute.

Stenmark, D. 2002 Information vs. Knowledge: The Role of intranets in Knowledge Management, Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.

Wenger,E. (1998): Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Online references:
Wikipedia (2009) online. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation (accessed February 2, 2009)

The free dictionary (2009) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/network (accessed February 2, 2009)

Knowledge Management Models

There is a wide spectrum of view points on Knowledge management models. Most of these models have the ultimate objective which is to get the right information across to the right people at the right time. They all seem to have the ability to create, store and retrieve knowledge within an organisation.

One of the interesting models I came across wasThe New Knowledge Management (TNKM) model developed initially by Mark W. McElroy (2001) and later expanded up on with Joseph M. Firestone (Firestone and McElroy, 2001). This Model focuses on what is referred to as Knowledge production. The authors found that first generation practitioners of KM focused only on a delivery-oriented KM system (known as the supply-side of knowledge) and this approach presupposes that Knowledge exists within the Organisation and must be found, codified and delivered to workers. On the opposite end, however, is the demand-side of Knowledge and here the question is asked; where does Knowledge come from and in addition to managing the old knowledge can we not create new knowledge in order to gain competitive advantage?

This model integrates both the supply and demand sides of KM. Here, the Organisation supports and invests in certain knowledge creating behaviours in order to strengthen and produce Organisational learning. It is believed that organisational learning starts with individual learning, goes though formed communities and is finally transformed back into organisational learning and the cycle is repeated all over again.

One older Model that can be referred to as a first generation/supply-side KM, in my opinion, would be the Nonaka’s Knowledge management Model, (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This Model focuses on categorising knowledge into types and transferring same within the Organisation (i.e. Tacit >explicit>explicit>tacit>tacit). Unlike the second generation TNKM, the demand-side which is the creation of new knowledge is lost in the categorisation process of Nonaka’s KM Model.

Based on my understanding of the two models, I can say that the Nonaka’s model adopts an epistemological approach, which has to do with how Knowledge is acquired, what people know and how people know what they know. Whereas, the New Knowledge Management Model adopts both an epistemological as well as an ontological approach which is the nature, being and existence of new Knowledge.


The KM Process model is yet another KM Model, proposed by Timo Kucza (2001), and with it’s own variations can be compared with the New Knowledge Management Model due to its holistic and realistic nature in terms of its application to an organisation.

The general concept of the KM Process Model is that it is process-oriented and the processes can be divided into two broad categories; the Co-ordination process and the Operational process. The Co-ordination process covers the management side of KM which include planning, monitoring, analysing knowledge as well as dealing with organisational issues, while the Operational process covers the actual working with knowledge e.g., collecting, sharing, and presenting of knowledge.

Some attributes of the three models are captured in the table 1 below:
Table 1.


Comparatively, while the three models discussed vary to certain degrees, the New Management knowledge and the KM process model tend to have more in common than with Nonaka’s KM Model. First, the two models recognise the important role of Management in KM. TNKM uses management to focus on supporting and investing in the creation of new knowledge while the KM Process model provides a crucial process for management input (Co-ordination process). Secondly the two models recognise the need for Knowledge update. TNKM provides for a repeat of the organisational learning cycle while the KM process Model provides a step in its operational process, dedicated to Knowledge update.



Theory to Practice:
In terms of knowledge production, the closet Model to what is available in my Organisation (a bank) is the New Knowledge Management Model.

In TNKM model, the creation of new knowledge starts with the individual learning process. Let’s say a marketing member of staff from his experiences and training in exceptional customer service delivery has picked up the knowledge that he can visit customers at their homes in order to build relationships and consequently provide excellent customer services. This staff however can agree or disagree with this new knowledge based on what he believes or thinks is true (Ontological knowledge), which may be that one should not take business out of the office. He then brings up this idea to a community of interest which is his regular meetings with his peers who are marketing officers from other teams.

From an ongoing process, the Community scrutinizes his knowledge and that of other members, modifies it and comes up with a community-made knowledge claim, which may be that it would be quite tasteful to remember customers’ birthdays and visit them with cakes and cards in their homes. This knowledge claim, as with the individual's, may differ from the practice of the day and would then escalate to senior management. At this point, new knowledge has emerged.

Management may decide to put this knowledge into practice by supporting staff and also by allocating resources to make this possible. This knowledge will most likely be adopted across all marketing teams in the Organisation and at this point, Organisational learning has taken place. Feedback from the application of this new knowledge will bring about either problems or new learning by some of the individual staff and then starts an individual learning process all over.

Conclusion
Based on my analysis of the three models, the TNKM and the KM process Models seem to be the most realistic for adoption by CKOs in today’s organisation because they are designed to ensure competitive advantage is maintained in the Organisation. The Nonaka Model, due to its’ nature of categorising the types of knowledge does not make room for the flexibility of knowledge within and outside of organisations today.


References:
Firestone J.M and McElroy M.W. (2001) ‘Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management’, KMCI/Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, Boston, MA.

Firestone J.M and McElroy M.W. (2005) 'Doing knowledge management', The Learning Organization Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 2005, pp189-212.

Mark W. McElroy (2000)’The New Knowledge Management’ Knowledge and Innovation: Journal of the KMCI, Vol.1, no. 1, pp43 JOURNAL OF THE KMCI

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, K. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Timo Kucza. 2001. Knowledge Management Process Model. 4 5 5. VTT PUBLICATIONS, 455