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