Critical Review of Knowledge Management Models

The learning Organization V 6 No 3 1999

Author MaAdam, McCreedy

• There is a lack of classification of suitable Knowledge Management models
• 3 Knowledge Management model classes are critiqued - Knowledge Category, Intellectual Capital and Socially Constructed
• What is the underlying Epistemology of Knowledge Management? Is knowledge based on scientific data or socially constructed or both (Richardson)?
• Aim of paper
  • Clarify definitions
  • Evaluate models
  • Suggest framework.

De Jarnett - Knowledge Management is knowledge creation, knowledge interpretation, knowledge dissemination, kknowledge retention and refinement Qunitas - Knowledge management processing is managing knowledge to meet existing needs, exploit acquired knowledge and develop new opportunities. Peters the crux of the issue is not info or IT, it lies more with psychology and makerting of knowledge within the family than with bits and bites Knowledge Management is seen as relating to theory and practice - from cognitive psychology. Definitions are not predicated on IT - Peters says it definitely is not - it is an enabler rather than a tenet.

Is Intellectual Capital the same as Knowledge Management? Drucker We are entering the knowledge society in which the basic economic resource is not longer capita it is and will be knowledge but Intellectual Capital is a wider concept that includes patents, copyrights, brands, R&D whereas KM is the strategy and tactics to manage Intellectual Capital. i.e. Leveraging

This concept os criticized as too mechanistic by those who see knowledge as socially constructed Gergen 1991 Alvesson and Willmott 1996

Knowledge Management as a Paradigm

McLaughlin Thorpe 1993 has it reached the point where is it a toolbox of techniques or a philosophy?

'Knowledge is truth' Morgan 1986 Absolutist approach to Knowledge construction associating it with factual inputs 'knowledge as socially constructed' emphasizes cultural and historical proceses rather than rationally superior knowledge - Burgoyne 1994

Models

All models should be treated with caution. They can only be understood with when underyling assumptions and context is known rather than accepting thme as objective representations of reality.

Knowledge Category Models

Nonaka

	Tacit	to	Explicit
Tacit	Socialization		Externalization
from
Explicit	Internalization		Combination

• Model is limited - assumes tacit knowledge can be transferred through socialization (comradeship) in to tacit and then tacit can become explicit through externalization (body of Knowledge). Explicit can be made tacit thru turning theory in to practice and Explicit to Explicit through combining existing theories.
• Too mechanistic ignores complexities

Nonaka Hedlund 1993

Assumes 4 different levels of agents of Knowledge

	Individual	Group	Organization	Interorganization
Articulated	Knowing	Quality Controls	Oragnizational Chart	Patents
Knowledge	Calculus			Docs/Process
Tacit	Cross-Cultural	Team	Culture	Customers
Knowledge	Negotiating Skills	Coordination		Expectations

Criticisms

• Still too segregationalist

Boisot 1987

Considers Knowledge as codified (readily prepared) or uncodified, diffused (readily shared)or undiffused.

	Undiffused	Diffused
Codified	Proprietary Knowledge	Public Knowledge
Uncodified	Personal Knowledge	Common Sense

Limited by the discrete categorization of knowledge

Intellectual Capital Models

Chase 1997 sees knowledge management as being segregated in to human, customer, process and growth elements which are contained in two main categoroes of human capital and organizational capital.

• Assumes a very scientific approach that knowledge can be commodified
• Ignores political and social aspects of Knowledge Management and that it can be decomposed rather than being a phenomenon.

Socially Constructed

Assumes wide definitions of knowledge and linked within the social and learning processes within organization

Demerest's adaptation of Staunton and Clark

• Emphasizes construction of Knowledge that is embodied in the org through explicit and social interchange - becomes espoused

Main flow Knowledge Construction to Knowledge Embodiment to Knowledge Dissemination to Knowledge Use.

Recursive

• Use to Knowledge embodiment, construction, dissemination
• Embodiment to constructon
• Dissemination to embodiment

• • Invites a more holistic approach
  • Limitation is that the recursive arrows have less prominence
  • the use box is focussed on outputs and emancipation use
  • Does not expand on the processual v circulatory or rapidity.
• Demerest's adaptation adds more arrows to reduce the sequential bias of the other module and addresses business benefits, emancipation, scientific and social paradigms.

To be added

Also the research in the article http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt2/sayi9pdf/haslinda_sarinah.pdf should be added