Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello my name is Dr. I Girard and in this segment I would like to discuss Chapter 3
chapter of our book A Leader’s Guide to Knowledge Management: Drawing in the Past
to Enhance Future Performance, The chapter is titled what types of knowledge exists.
In this section, we introduce a new model of knowledge management enablers that we designed
to help leaders conquer the knowledge challenges of today. Our review begins with an overview
of the knowledge challenges facing organizations. Next, we review a number of knowledge management
models and conclude that five enablers are the most important. These five enablers are
molded together to form a new exemplar based on the Japanese structure of the Torii. The
results of a quantitative research project validate the Torii’s components of Technology,
Leadership, Culture, Process, and Measurement. Practitioners and academics alike suggest
that knowledge management might be the solution to many organizational challenges. Frequent
journal articles add to the body of knowledge in the domain of knowledge management and
yet we seem no closer to the Holy Grail. In the last decade, management gurus have offered
a variety of reasons why leaders should consider knowledge management as a way ahead. Some
of the more popular suggestions include deregulation, globalization, technology, terrorism, downsizing,
and information overload. Though each of these notions bears merit, the last two demand the
attention of organizational leaders as they seem to be widespread in so many organizations—public,
private, not-for-profit. This overview is the culmination of a research
project that began several years ago. Through formal presentations to various groups, the
ideas of the project have been refined. The aim of this chapter is to provide executives
a model that may be useful in combating these destructive forces, which unfortunately are
commonplace in our organizations of today. The review begins with an overview of several
contemporary knowledge management models from which five enablers emerge as the most important
for organizations that wish to succeed in the future. These five components are blended
to create a new archetype. The model was included in a recent survey instrument with a view
to conducting exploratory research into the viability of the model. Although space constraints
preclude a detailed analysis of the quantitative results, a brief summary of the study and
the major findings are included. What Are the Knowledge Management Enablers?
Eariler we defined the component parts and concepts of knowledge management. Using an
analogy of the knowledge pyramid, the concentration, thus far, has been on the data foundation
or facts about knowledge management. This chapter builds on this foundation by adding
relevance or purpose: in other words, layer two of the pyramid, analogous to information.
Our review of knowledge management enablers commences by considering the findings published
in If Only We Knew What We Know. This work is a first-class project that dedicates a
substantial effort to describing the results of their research to what they term the enablers
of transfer. In developing their thesis, Carla O’Dell and Jack Grayson had access to a
number of knowledge management research projects completed by the APQC. Few other researchers
have utilized such a comprehensive database to develop their theories.
O’Dell and Grayson contend that “Infrastructure, culture, technology and measurement are all
necessary enablers [of knowledge management]; none alone is sufficient. Rather, they must
all work in concert to achieve sustainable success” . The premise that a number of
interrelated and interdependent elements comprise the knowledge management model is grounded
in system theory and supported by other recent research. Though we agree with O’Dell and
Grayson’s premise, it is important to underscore Leadership as an enabler as suggested by many
others. O’Dell and Grayson acknowledge the importance of leadership as an enabler; however,
they opted to have leadership subsumed in each category rather than as a stand-alone
subject area. Though there is considerable merit in their assumption, leadership is worthy
of its own discussion. At present, a number of models exist that
attempt to describe the enablers of knowledge management. The scope of this chapter prohibits
a comprehensive review of the entire spectrum of current models, but nor is that necessary.
Rather, it is important to acknowledge that a variety of models exists and to recognize
that consensus has not been achieved. Despite the lack of harmony, a review of contemporary
thinking is worthwhile as it provides a primer of best practices.
Three of the most well-known models are worth a brief review. First is Knowledge Management:
The Architecture of Enterprise Engineering; next is the European network for knowledge
management; and finally, the U.S. Department of Navy’s Balanced Knowledge Management
model. These three models provide a comprehensive overview of current thinking, both from an
academic and from a practitioner’s view. Equally, these exemplars provide a brilliant
balance between profit and not-for-profit organizations, as well as U.S. and European
ideas. In the following section, each of these models is compared and contrasted with O’Dell
and Grayson’s framework. Developed at George Washington University
in 1999, Knowledge Management: The Architecture of Enterprise Engineering is often called
the Pillars of KM. This important model remains one of the most studied and quoted descriptions
of the complex knowledge management system. The foundation of the model is that each of
the pillars represents a key element critical to knowledge management programs. Recent research
further strengthened the authority of the model by statistically validating the existence
of the four key elements and supporting their professed values and comparative significance.
The second model originates from Europe and “aims to identify and support commonality
in KM terminology, application, and implementation in Europe”. This robust model offers a holistic
and concise view of the major elements—much of which supports current North American academic
and business views of knowledge management. The model not only reinforces the notion of
system thinking but also follows traditional philosophies, based largely on Nonaka and
APQC, in terms of the major components necessary for a successful implementation of knowledge
management. The U.S. Department of Navy, a world-renowned
leader in public sector knowledge management, developed the final model. In 2002, under
the leadership of Alex Bennet, the Department of the Navy was recognized as one of the most
important knowledge management organizations in North America. The Navy’s model is based
on their experience rather than academic research; however, the similarity to the academic models
is striking and worthy of note. As knowledge management principles are relatively immature
and continue to develop, one would be remiss to consider only the findings of academia
when organizations such as the Navy have codified their extensive experience. In other academic
fields, ignoring practical experience may be the norm and acceptable; however, oxymoronically,
the study of experience must be a part of the research of knowledge management. To ignore
the lessons from real-world experience would be to deny the existence of tacit knowledge.
A review of the various knowledge management models suggests five enablers—Technology,
Leadership, Culture, Measurement, and Process— are common in at least three of the five models.
In this section, we introduce a new structure, the Torii, to describe the key enablers of
knowledge management. We are unaware of others using this structure to describe knowledge
transfer enablers; however, it seems that this traditional Japanese architectural structure
is an excellent symbol to illustrate the enablers. The Japanese often use a Torii as a portal
to enter a sanctuary—for us the sanctuary is a knowledge environment. Normally the Japanese
construct a Torii with two vertical bars supported by two or three horizontal bars. Key to the
structural integrity of the Torii is the lowest horizontal bar, or Nuki, which binds the remaining
horizontal and vertical bars. In our Torii, the trinity of Technology, Leadership, and
Culture bonded by the Nuki of Process is illustrated. The highest bar in this Torii, known as the
Kasagi, is Measurement. Like a real Torii, this highest bar is not essential to the structure’s
integrity; however, it plays an important role in ensuring the Torii is noticed and
respected.
Quantitative Research Results The second stage of this investigation was
to subject the theoretical construct to a quantitative analysis. To achieve this aim,
one section of a recent survey instrument was dedicated to the component parts of the
Torii model. Though exploratory in nature, the findings proved very interesting and therefore
are worthy of review. The sampling technique used for this project was the snowball technique,
which is not totally random. In reality, this sampling technique relies on motivated volunteers
to complete the survey and solicit the support of their colleagues. This does not mean that
this sample is not representative of the entire population; however, one must use care in
generalizing the results too broadly. The online survey instrument included the
statement is an important enabler of knowledge management. Of particular note
was the discovery that 90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Leadership
is an important enabler of knowledge management. The importance of Leadership as an enabler
was echoed in the qualitative comments, including “Projects that start today have the distinct
advantage of all the advances in Information/Knowledge Management. However, the best tools available
won’t be of any use if Senior Management does not recognize the value of Knowledge
Management” or Starting knowledge management in an organization
KM with the support of a KM champion. An intriguing discovery is that Culture was
seen to be of equal importance as Technology. One respondent had very strong views on the
relative importance of the two, especially if one compares the past to the future: There
are more examples in our book. We will pause at this point as we discuss
our Torii model. In the next section we will review a case study of knowledge management
in action. So until next time, this is Doctor John signing off.