ABSTRACT

In this paper, focus will be given on analysing how an innovative organisation can be inefficient. The key role of information systems in addressing this issue will be discussed. The perspectives of various researchers will be taken into consideration. The different type of knowledge management will also be discussed. The drawbacks of Knowledge Management without proper information systems will be highlighted. Keywords: Knowledge Management, information systems, knowledge management disadvantages, knowledge management innovation

INTRODUCTION
It has regularly been said that the knowledge based organisations are not as efficient as they are innovative. The report by the top consultancy firm, KPMG also confirms this statement. A knowledge manager of KPMG, Nagle (1999) says that one of the major challenges being faced by the firms in todays world is how to best capture, store, retain and share the vast amount of knowledge possesses by their professionals. As per Cameron (2000), Knowledge is power, but without the adequate management of that knowledge, the consequences for [organizations] could be devastating. It should not come as a surprise to us that most of the firms are of the view that the key enabler for efficient knowledge management will be technology. Currently the corporate efforts are concentrated more on the group of technologies called as Knowledge Management Systems (KMS). KMS in firms assists its employees to easily access the information in a better way, share ideas and learn from previous mistakes. In theory, by facilitating the sharing of ideas, KMS improves the innovativeness of the business. However, the downside of this is that by following this process, firms become less efficient. In this process, employees tend to spend more time in doing things, discussing different ideas which results in issues in streamlining the work and doing it in an efficient manner. The central question of discussion here is how information systems like SAP or ERM can help in enhancing the efficiency of KMS. How can the implementations of a new information system can help in reduction of time wastage and simultaneously assist in making the knowledge transfer process more efficient. In this paper, first an introduction to the knowledge processes will be given. Then how the role of knowledge management evolved in organisations will be discussed. The merits of knowledge management will be highlighted. Furthermore the potential inefficiencies due to knowledge management will be discussed. Afterwards the role of information systems in curbing the drawbacks of knowledge management will be discussed in detail taking the example of few organisations who successfully implemented information systems in their organisations.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge Management is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organisation with a view to furthering the organizations objectives. The knowledge to be managed includes both explicit, documented knowledge and tacit, subjective knowledge. Management entails all those processes involved with identification, sharing and creation of knowledge. (Davenport et al, 1998). Figure 1: Knowledge hierarchy Figure 1 gives a good idea of the hierarchy of knowledge. It shows how value can be added from the raw data which are at the disposal of organisations. By following the hierarchy, it can be seen how the data become information when applied to a particular context. This perspective will be discussed in detail later on. Furthermore, that information becomes knowledge when a particular meaning is applied to it. Finally that knowledge becomes wisdom when it is used as an insight. This wisdom is then useful for any organisation. Knowledge can mainly be classified into two types: tacit and explicit knowledge. It has always been difficult to define these two types of knowledge. Tacit knowledge is basically rooted in a specific context, is subjective, highly experimental and largely unconscious. While explicit knowledge is mainly rule based, reusable and is objective. Figure 2: Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Figure 2 displays the difference between explicit and implicit knowledge when applied in the context of adding value to an organisation. It highlights the fact that the main difference between the two is use of communication in tacit knowledge. While in the case of explicit knowledge models are being used to add value. Figure 3: Types of Knowledge (Willcocks and Whitley, 2009) Knowledge can further be classified into individual level and collective level. Figure 3 shows the interaction between the types of knowledge in a matrix form. This figure further highlights the difference between the explicit and tacit knowledge. In the case of knowledge based organisation, KM can mainly be classified into two varieties. First is, IT-focussed where knowledge is an object. IT is used to increase productivity of an organisation. Firms attempt to leverage the already held data. The firm wide relationship is enabled electronically. Second variety is Human- centred where knowledge is a process which leads to creation of more knowledge. It is primarily focussed on sharing knowledge and learning and innovation. Figure 4: Interaction of Knowing and Types of Knowledge Source: Small and Sage, 2005/2006 Figure 4 shows how knowledge is applied in the context of an organisation. In this interaction, the process of knowing remains at the core of the matrix and is used as an action. Different academics are of different views about knowledge based organisations. Pentland (1995) says that knowledge is mostly constructed socially and is shared between the

participants in an organisational culture even though the participants have their own individual perspectives and views of the organisational situations. Sahay and Robey (1996) further capture on this concept in their proposal of knowledge operationalization as social interpretation (Schultze and Leidner, 2002). The different perspectives of knowledge in an organisational context are: knowledge vis--vis data and information, state of mind, object, process, access to information and capacity. To further elaborate on the same it can be said that data is facts, raw numbers. Knowledge is customized information. In this case, KM concentrates on passing potentially useful information to individuals, thereby enabling incorporation of information. Next is the perspective of state of mind where knowledge behaves as the expression of knowing and interpreting. Here KM includes improving employees learning and understanding by providing information. Another perspective is that knowledge is perceived as a body to be stored and modified. Fourth is the view of knowledge being perceived as the expertise application process. The central focus of KM is over the process of creation, sharing, distribution and flow of knowledge. Fifth perspective is the knowledge being viewed as a requirement to retrieve information. The KM focuses of on methodological access to and retrieval of information. Finally knowledge is perceived as the potential to influence action.

KNOWLEDGE BASED ORGANISATIONS

In this section, it will be analysed as to how knowledge based organisations innovate better than the ones who are not knowledge based. Automotive industry provides a very good opportunity to examine inter-organizational learning. More than 70 per cent of the value of vehicle is developed and manufactured by OEMs and their supplier networks. As a consequence of this, the productivity of the network of firms working in collaboration is directly related to the quality and cost of the automobile. Most of the research in automotive sector shows that Japanese automotive network, in particular, Toyota has been far superior in transferring the productivity improving knowledge throughout the supply network (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). Figure 5: Comparison between Automotive Labor Productivity of US and Japanese Carmakers The network of Toyota seems very effective in facilitating inter-organisational knowledge transfers (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). It will not be wrong to call it a model for the future of automotive industry. One of the major dilemmas which Toyota faced while implementing the knowledge management processes in their organisation is to how to do the knowledge transfers among a large number of individual members in the most efficient manner. There were appropriate conditions to take care of other dilemmas like keeping the individuals motivated enough to participate actively and curbing free riding. But the critical steps necessary for proper flow of knowledge among members was not efficient enough. While explicit knowledge can easily be codified and transmitted to a large group of individuals via meetings and other activities, transfer of tacit knowledge required strong collaboration and can probably be transferred merely to a small cluster of individuals at a particular location only(Dyer and Nobeoka,

2000). Sharing information through meetings will result in inefficiency in transfer of tacit knowledge. To counter this issue, Toyota promoted the thinking of kyoson kyoei and created a collective network-level knowledge transmission, repository and processes of diffusion. Four of the key network-level processes were: (1) the supplier association (a network-level forum for creating a shared social community, inculcating network norms, and sharing knowledge), (2) Toyotas operations management consulting division (a network-level unit given accountability for knowledge acquisition, storage, and diffusion within the network), (3) voluntary small group learning teams (jishuken), or a sub-network forum for knowledge sharing that creates strong ties and a shared community among small groups of suppliers, and (4) inter-firm employee transfers (some job rotations occur at the network level) (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). These four critical processes managed to create an identity of the network. Moreover it also facilitated knowledge transfer among network member. Figure 6: Toyotas network-level knowledge-sharing processes Figure 6 gives a fuller picture of the knowledge sharing processes implemented in Toyota. By following these processes, Toyota managed to build robust mutual relationship with suppliers. Furthermore suppliers also started getting critical knowledge at nominal cost. As of result of this, suppliers participated in the network with a keen interest. It was not only to show their commitment towards Toyota but also to get knowledge transfers from Toyota. The more valuable tacit knowledge was being transferred in the bilateral atmosphere. This resulted in giving a powerful identity to the network. Suppliers began to correlate with the social community of the network. All this was made possible by the learning groups which resulted in strong multi-dimensional relationships. Moreover suppliers also recognised the merits of sharing of knowledge. Additionally the Toyota suppliers were also in competition among themselves in the sense that the quickest grasping supplier will most probably get business for the new model. It has been a major accomplishment for Toyota in the way they managed to motivate all the members to participate and contribute knowledge (Burgess, 2005) for the collective good. Organisations who are leaders in knowledge management have used extrinsic rewards (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). To further substantiate this statement, experienced consultants at Ernst & Young and McKinsey were evaluated, on the basis of knowledge they contribute to their organisation. These consultants are of the view that one party has to be willing to give something or get something from another party. They were of the view that open and organic information culture leads to larger sharing. Furthermore they also proposed that those individuals who feel that their knowledge belongs to them rather than to their organisation can be expected to share their knowledge more (Burgess, 2005).

Disadvantages of KM
Research has shown that the ready availability of examples for KMS users led to a significant enhancement in their problem-solving skills when compared to the skills level gained through the use of traditional reference materials (McCall et al, 2008). Results have further shown that groups having access to KMS far outperforms those working in the traditional groups.

Moreover this edge vanishes when the KMS access is removed. It has also been deducted that while both the groups gain different types of explicit knowledge the traditional groups have a tendency to encode most of the rules in memory. However the KMS group manages to gain superior-level of explicit knowledge which acts as a key to tacit knowledge formulation. In the context of business, researchers have found that employees are more willing to exchange knowledge if it is related to business goals (Small and Sage, 2005/2006). They have put more emphasis on the importance of business strategy to be communicated to the employees. Another important aspect to be noted here is that the knowledge sometimes acts as a double-edged sword; though too less leads to in-efficiencies, too much can lead to rigidities that can be counterproductive in a rapidly changing world. Furthermore too little may lead to muddled social relations, too much will lead to curbing of different perspectives (Bowker and Star, 1999). According to Schultze and Leidner (2002), too little may lead to costly errors, too much may lead to undesirable answerability. IT can play a major role in all the knowledge management processes like knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer and application. One of the most critical issues being faced by the organisations in todays world is their deficiency of skill to capture and incorporate information located in different sources. While some of these are internal to an organisation (data warehouse, transaction database, knowledge portals) others are external (commercial database, credit reports, news agency announcements, etc.) (Delen and Hawamdeh, 2009). If the organisations try to integrate the multiple sources into a single unified system just for the sake of centralization of the sources of information then it leads to highly rigid systems which are not practically manageable. Some of the major reasons of the failure of KM are the multifaceted and multidimensional nature of knowledge available in an organisation. The dynamic nature and relationships between the knowledge management frameworks is also cited as one of the major reasons of failure of KMS.

Role of Information Systems

An efficient KMS should allow the user to easily access the explicit knowledge stored in any system that can be applied to address the issue in hand. KMS should increase the ease with which user can find a potential solution to the problematic situation. KMS makes the user relax about the need to encode the explicit knowledge in long-term memory as the knowledge components can easily be accesses by the users active working memory (McCall et al, 2008). There are two critical demerits of KMS which might balance out the potential of the encoding of the knowledge available explicitly. Firstly, the vast amount of information and different ways of retrieving it via KMS could lead to likely increase in the amount of mental workout to retrieve the information (Rose and Wolfe, 2000; Rose, 2005). Secondly, it is the supposed simplicity of availability. If the information is easily accessible then the user will just use it for his situation without feeling any kind of motivation to encode the knowledge. Researchers have found that many companies who have implemented Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) are of the view that the software will provide them a new chance to improve operational support and will simultaneously provide them a competitive advantage also (Irani

et al, 2007). However the concept of justification happens only at those places where every employee is made aware of the importance of the new software for the organisational sustainability. Although the resources of knowledge varies firm wide but usually it constitutes of manuals, letters, information about customers and derived knowledge of work processes. Organisations are realising that knowledge will not automatically flow throughout the company. A critical aspect of knowledge sharing is providing the right means which should work within the organisational context. Over the period of time, organisations have realised that information technology (IT) is the only means by which enterprise knowledge can be shared effectively. Video-conferencing, sharing of application and providing support electronically are some of the key enablers of knowledge sharing processes. They can provide an excellent support to the already existing infrastructure of knowledge management. Few of the major benefits of Knowledge Management systems are (1) In-valuable information can be shared throughout the hierarchy of the organisation. (2) Provides the opportunity to do away with churning out the same work thereby resulting in reduction of out-dated work. (3) New employees can be trained in a shorter period. (4) The intellectual property is retained by the organisation even of the employees leaves if it is possible to codify that knowledge. Some of the organisations who implemented the KMS very effectively and efficiently are MIT Open Course Ware, Knowledge Wharton. Although both of these organisations are educational institutions they provide an excellent case study of efficiently using information systems in their KM processes. The key role being played by information systems is to assist in the storage and diffusion of knowledge so that knowledge can be accessed across the space and time (Schultze and Leidner, 2002). Information systems provide visibility to the invisible work and the complexity involved in doing that work. Figure 7: KMS Success Model (Halawi et al, 2007-2008) Figure 7 shows the key role being played by information systems in the success of KM projects. Normally it is at the centre of many KM projects (Halawi et al, 2007-2008). However organisations who are implementing information systems into their KMS need to take few factors into consideration. The so-called free exchange of knowledge is possible only in an open corporate culture, non-departmental hierarchy. Furthermore sometimes this open culture can act as an obstacle for employee empowerment (Irani et al, 2007). Another point to be noted about multi-faceted aspect of KMS is that an effective KMS in not just about technology. It incorporates cultural and organisational aspects as well, it is necessary to design proper metrics to access the positives of KMS (Halawi et al, 2007-2008). Furthermore an integrated technical architecture is the critical driver for KMS. Proper use of information systems will facilitate the process of knowledge transfer, assisting in both the transmission and absorption and utilisation of knowledge. Researchers have found groupware, an IT tool for working in a group is of immense help in the proper implementation of KM in organisations. Groupware helps in interpersonal communications and facilitates the transfer of tacit knowledge (Wua et al, 2010). Researchers have found that the software tools and information systems applications are very crucial for both the provider side and receiver side.

Most of the top technology firms rely mainly on their dynamic ability to transform the knowledge in their organisation to add value to their customers. Researchers are of the view that the focus on tacit knowledge should not lead to not giving due importance to proper implementation of information systems. A proper balance needs to be found and exercised (Kalkan, 2008). In the current world, any organisation having improper implementation of information systems will be at a disadvantage position in the marketplace. Implementation of information systems should always be knowledge oriented.

CONCLUSION
This paper makes an attempt to analyse the role of information systems in efficient utilisation of KM. It has been highlighted as to how information systems are crucial in making an innovative organisation highly efficient. The demerits of KM without proper information systems are discussed. The efficient way in which Toyota managed its knowledge sharing using information systems within the organisation and across its suppliers has been discussed in detail. An attempt has been made to throw more light on the other aspects of proper IS implementation. Organisations should not consider that just by implementing Information systems all our problems will be solved. Information Systems should not be considered as a silver bullet. As the research area is still evolving, more future research can be done on this topic. There are further sub-categories within KM which can be researched in more detail. Those categories will further provide a detailed view of the topic. While few organisations who implemented information systems has been analysed, other organisations also need to be analysed in this regard. Furthermore the definition of innovation and efficiency can be analysed from the perspectives of organisations implementing. This will provide a broader picture of the research area.

REFERENCES
Burgess, D. (2005). WHAT MOTIVATES EMPLOYEES TO TRANSFER KNOWLEDGE OUTSIDE THEIR WORK UNIT? Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 324-348. Cameron, P. . (2000). Managing the wealth. CMA Management, 74(9), 4649. Davenport, T. H. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57. DELEN, D. AND HAWAMDEH, S. (2009). A Holistic Framework for Knowledge Discovery and Management. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 52(6), 141-145.

DYER, J. H.and NOBEOKA, K. (2000). CREATING AND MANAGING A HIGH PERFORMANCE KNOWLEDGE-SHARING NETWORK: THE TOYOTA CASE. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345367. IRANI, Z., SHARIF, A. M. and LOVE, P. E. D. (2007). Knowledge mapping for information systems evaluation in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research, 45(11), 24352457. Kalkan, V. D. (2008). An overall view of knowledge management challenges for global business. Business Process Management Journal, 14(3), 390-400. McCall, H., & Arnold, V. a. (2008). Use of Knowledge Management Systems and the Impact on the Acquisition of Explicit Knowledge. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 22(2), 77101. Nagle, C. (1999). Research opportunities in knowledge management. Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association. Pentland . (1995). Information Systems and Organizational Learning: The Social Epistemology of Organizational Knowledge. AMIT. Rose, J. M. and Wolfe, C. J. (2000). The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 285306. Rose. J. M. (2005). Decision aids and experiential learning. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 175189. Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). STUDYING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH: DISCOURSES AND THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 213-242. Small, C. T., and Sage, A. P. (2005/2006). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing: A review. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 153169. Willcocks, L. and Whitley, E. A. (2009). Developing the Information and Knowledge Agenda in Information Systems: Insights From Philosophy. The Information Society, 190 197. Wua, C. H.; Kao, S. C. and Shih, L. H. (2010). Assessing the suitability of process and information technology in supporting tacit knowledge transfer. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(5), 513525.

Wednesday, 30 January 2008

The Future of Knowledge Management

These days there is a lot of talk about knowledge management, but curiously, you dont hear much talk about human memory.

People are natural knowledge managers. They receive new information all throughout each day and they decide what to retain and what to ignore, who to pas what on to because they would be interested, and what to consider as a problem that needs more thought. They do this effortlessly and, for the most part, unconsciously. They learn and get smarter as a result of every experience.

It is natural to wonder then, why those who worry about these same issues in knowledge management dont simply just copy the methods that people use and build enterprise-wide knowledge management systems that mimic how people do the same tasks. Whats that you say? We dont know how people do these tasks? Not so fast. We know quite a bit. The reason knowledge management systems dont mimic people is that those who build these systems are typically not cognitive scientists. Looking at KM from a Cognitive Science point of view changes everything.

Today, knowledge management systems store knowledge about manuals and procedures the way a library catalog system does the same job. They use an initial set of categories, to describe the domain of knowledge. Such a static system changes with great difficulty. Once you have designed it, it never really changes. More importantly, changing it requires outside intervention, maybe a committee and a total re-design.

Why does the ability to change how knowledge is indexed matter? It is called learning. If a person doesnt get smarter as a result of experience he is called dumb. A KM system simply get slower as a result of more information. It never has an aha experience, recognizing how two different documents considered together can shed a whole new light on an issue. It never has that experience because it actually understands nothing

about what these documents contain. It is like a librarian who cant read. We can do better.

A set of manuals about proper procedure (or even an entire library of books) will hold answers to many questions that an employee of an enterprise might have. While the answers are there, the questions are not. Who goes to a library with a business question like how can I really improve my companys value proposition? Has no author within the library assets ever come across your kind of problem? Of course not.

Libraries are not indexed properly. They cannot be asked a question. They do not know your needs. When did your library send you a note early in the morning telling you it has the answer to the value proposition you were thinking about last night? Libraries and manuals hold solutions to one set of problems but do not recognize similar problems to which the solutions apply. They have no idea of what is currently going on in your life or in your enterprise and so cannot prioritize your needs. They also know nothing of what your colleagues are doing so if conflicts arise they cannot prevent errors.

You may say this is how it has always been in a library. Libraries hold books, papers and manuals. Search techniques find good matches when you use them properly. Why change it? What will this do for my business? Why should I even think about this issue?

Many companies are investing in knowledge management these days. Companies are getting bigger and more disconnected. What is known in one office may have never even been heard of in another. The more people write down what they know and what their experiences have been, the more important it is to be able to access that information without specifically asking for it. One person wont know that another has just written. The KM system must be able to realize that the experience that Joe has just had will help Mary with the problem she is working on now.

Folders with hierarchical groups of information are not the cure. Neither are portals with access to all our library subscriptions using a password and user specific access rights. Companies make all kinds of investments to achieve process co-ordination. Purchasing systems are used to co-ordinate the purchasing process. Asset management systems are used to manage complex assets. E-mail is used to co-ordinate unstructured discussion. But do any of these systems know what the entire corporation is doing and why it is doing it? Can these systems prevent goal conflicts? Do any of these systems recognize problems and provide solutions?

KM systems and other enterprise applications clearly do not do this. (Otherwise no one would complain of over-information. Note that people never feel that they personally know too much. They just think that other people are trying to give them too much information, which they could not possibly absorb.) Over information is the result of bad knowledge management. Television, enterprise information, the internet all give us over information Why do people not complain of this sort of over information in their own minds? Because the human mind manages information very well.

Why do we want our knowledge management systems or our enterprise applications or our e-mail to manage information? Shouldnt we want our systems to co-ordinate the enterprise and make them act according to all its experience?

It would be correct to assume that all corporations want their key staff to notice important circumstances and know how these apply to the business. When one key staff member can be relied upon to notice, is the corporation satisfied? Shouldnt more people notice?

How long does it take to train a senior corporate officer who can be relied upon to identify the corporations risk and opportunities in time to act? How many people need to feed this person with timely information through e-mails and meetings to make sure the right issues get attention? How much time do senior people spend reading things that are irrelevant and how often do they worry that they have not gone through enough (possibly useless ) information to be sure a major risk or opportunity is not being overlooked?
POSTED BYPROF. ROGER SCHANK & DIMITRI LYRASAT02:04

What is the future of Knowledge Management? KM is in trouble in the present (see, Is KM relevant anymore?) and the signals are clear, adapt or risk being seen as irrelevant. We surely cant continue to participate in the KM boundary conflict of the here-and-now, it is absorbing way too much energy and resource on arguments that are too often embedded in a bygone era. The focus needs to shift to shaping the future (keeping one eye on KMs relevance in the present). Nailing my colours to the mast, the next era of Knowledge Management practice will see the field complete its migration from a traditional tools-led approach to a competence/capability-led approach. Knowledge Managers will have to absorb insights from approaches to adult learning, business psychology, decision science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and natural science disciplines. Tools will always be necessary, but they will be one part of a holistic

blueprint of an organisational capability, where knowledge sits as the core capability or competence for the organisation. KM will have no choice but to either lead or become part of a team that incorporates HR (HRM, talent management and learning & development functions), IT (including functions such as data/information/content management/decision management), Organisational Development and a cross section of stakeholders (an agile group of stakeholders that inform, challenge and develop the thinking of the core team). Adaptive capability will be the norm and KM should be looking to lead on capability/capacity development, effectively the ability to scale and swarm around signals of change in the external/internal environment. Complexity is the sexy super model of management science at the moment and it shows no signs of abating (though some might argue that it is the concept of sync or oscillation that should actually be the focus). Therefore, Knowledge Management (or whatever it might be called in years to come will we see the return/emergence of an Organisational Intelligence Group?) will drive efficient and effective organisation boundary management (sensory and response) systems/processes/tools. Sensory and response systems are evolving exponentially and, consequently, for example, KMers need to progress their thinking on knowledge flows, incorporating concepts from fields such as cognitive science, decision science and natural science. The following are three examples of insights from other fields, from Murmurations, through to Nudges and The Rich Club. The Rich Club: cognitive scientists at the University of Indiana, working with colleagues at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, have discovered The Rich Club described by the researchers as, G8 summit of our brain.and it seems that there is something here for management science.

From new scientist (2903), Feb 2013

This club is a cluster of domains within the brain that could be described as super hubs. Each domain or hub is hyper connected to its local environment. The hubs that constitute the Rich Club then share information and collaborate to manage the whole. The theory is that the hyperconnectivity at a local level speeds up efficiency and prevents overload; the information processing hub that forms part of the Rich Club can then dampen signals of low significance and amplify high significance signals, sharing and collaborating with the other hubs to then provide decisions on a course of action. The hubs, according to the research, are not hyper-specialised (in other words they are not focused on a single cognitive function, such as interpreting visual signals), but instead are cross-disciplinary. The hyper-connected local network conserves energy, not having to be concerned about transporting information over a network of highways (think of having to manage that overload, to say nothing of the potential traffic-jams), instead acting locally and allowing the super-hub to transport large amounts of relevant information along clutter-free super highways that connect the Rich Club. Its a group of highly influential regions that keep each other informed and likely collaborate on issues that concern whole brain functioningAll these regions are getting all kinds of highly processed information, from virtually all parts of the brain. (Indiana University Press Release). Murmurations and Human Sensory Networks: What is fascinating from the video below is that you can begin to see how this can be adapted for use by organisations operating in a complex environment. Also, starlings are more intelligent than we realise watch the video, at 2:27 they form a perfect number 6 (Im sure theres a message in there somewhere)! It is widely understood that teams fracture beyond a peak intimacy of 12 (see our post should I go it alone to innovate?). The optimal team size is actually argued to range between 5 and 7 suddenly we are in starling territory (you need to watch the video). What is proposed is that starlings, flying at a similar speed, synced with their closest flying partners, are better placed to sense and avoid predators. Scientific study having shown that starlings actually only need to be aware of their 7 closest neighbours to achieve scale free correlation a state through which information can move across the flock at high speed (efficiency), with little signal drop off (effectiveness). The starlings are not led, per se, but you could say there is an alignment of purpose (for us, as humans, dare we say an alignment of values?) boundary scanning and responsein other words, avoiding predators. So, what can we extrapolate from this in terms of Human Sensory networks or KM practice? Are we saying that grand designs for large communities of practice are outmoded? Are we saying that we should be looking to create small (intimate strong ties) hubs of 5-7 people that connect to their seven nearest neighbours, all of which contain another 5-7 people. Are we saying that this type of structure can form a hyper-connected net that is capable of high speed transmission

with a high signal to noise ratioproducing enhanced or optimised boundary scanning and response systems? Nudges: The art of psychology and decision science is impacting us and we dont even know it. From influencing our shopping habits (see well documented discussions on the layout design of your favourite food superstore) through to improving the accuracy of male toilet habits I always wondered why there was a fly printed on the urinal bowl at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam we are being subconsciously nudged (manipulated see the New Scientist Articel from June 2013) toward a decision outcome. KMers are constantly asking how the organisation can do a better job of getting people to share knowledge, well, between a blend of effective HR policies and procedures, tools and well crafted nudges it might just be possible to get people to share knowledge. So, what is the future of Knowledge Management? To sum up, there is no way I can cover everything that is prodding the field in a single blog (e.g. big data through to artificial intelligence), but one thing is clear, the field is changing and will continue to change. KMers can either cling to a fitness with a fast fading landscape from a bygone era (traditional tools such as Lessons Learned or Post Action Reviews) or they can sense the change and work to shape the future. If Knowledge Management is to even have a future, it has to be the latter.

July 17, 2013

Social Media vs. Knowledge Management

Whats the difference between the two? On the surface they sound very similar, particularly for someone who had had experience with knowledge management. Both involve people using technology to access information. Both require individuals to create information that is intended for sharing. Both technologies profess support for collaboration. But as Monty Python might say: If it walks like a duck, quacks like one and weighs as much as a duck then it floats and therefore it is made out of wood. Social media and knowledge management may seem to be the same thing based on their basic characteristics, but in reality they are different. I am not going to argue that one is better than the other, playing that type of zero-sum game is a waste of time. Rather than a these vs. those argument, it is time to recognize the differences and move on to figure out how best to apply each. Equating social media to knowledge management makes sense if there is only one way to create, serve, and consume knowledge. Thankfully there are many ways and that makes social media different from knowledge management.

Knowledge management is what the company tells me I need to know based on what they think is important. Social media is how my peers show me what they think is important based on their experience in a way that I can judge for myself The descriptions may sound harsh and biased in favor of social media and to some extent that is true. Knowledge should be like water free flowing and permeating down and across your organization filling the cracks, floating good ideas to the top, lifting everyone in the organization. Knowledge management, in practice, reflects a hierarchical view of knowledge to match the hierarchical view of the organization. Knowledge may originate anywhere in the organization, but under knowledge management it is channeled and gathered together in a knowledge base (cistern) where it is distributed based on a predefined set of channels, processes and protocols. Social media looks chaotic in comparison. There is no predefined index, now pre qualified knowledge creators, no knowledge managers, ostensibly little to no structure. Where an organization has a roof, gutters and cistern to capture knowledge, a social media organization has no roof allowing the rain to fall directly into the house collecting in puddles wherever they happen to form. That can be quite messy and organizations abhor a mess. It is no wonder that executives, knowledge managers and software companies seek of offer tools, processes and approaches to tame the social media. After all we cannot have employees, customers, suppliers and anyone else creating their own information, forming their own opinion and expressing that without our say. Think of the impact on our brand, our people, our customers We need to manage this. We need knowledge management. This is exactly the wrong attitude for one simple reason. It does not stop people from talking about you. Your people, customers, suppliers, competitors etc. will talk about you whenever, wherever and however they want. Sure in the past these conversations were not readily available across the World Wide Web, but they were happening. But now is not the time to seek control as much as its time to engage everyone. Leaders recognize that engagement is the best way to glean value from the knowledge exchanged in social media. The do this, not by seeking to control social media with traditional knowledge management techniques. That only leads to what Anthony Bradley calls a provide and pray approach. Translating your Lotus Notes Databases or Corporate Intranet is not the answer. It only swaps out technology without recognizing the innate difference between social media and knowledge management. If your KM capabilities were poor, adding social media will lead to the same old result only on new and different technology. If social media is not knowledge management, then you need a different approach to create value out of social media you need to become a social organization. Anthony Bradley and myself have been looking at this, as we have seen more than our share of social media as next generation knowledge management fail to yield results. Answering the question of, how do organizations gain value from social media, particularly in situations here they have not been successful with knowledge management rests in a new view of collaboration mass collaboration. Mass collaboration consists of three things: social media, a compelling purpose and a focus on forming communities Social media technology provides the conduit and means for people to share their knowledge, insight and experience on their terms. It also provides a way for me to see and

evaluate that knowledge based on the judgment of others. That is important but it is only a part. Purpose is the reason why people participate their ideas, experience and knowledge. They participate personally in social media because the value and identify with the purpose. They do so because they want to, rather than being told to as part of their job. Communities are self-forming in social media. Communities in knowledge management are often assigned by job classification or encouraged based on work duties. Participation becomes prescribed creating the type of mandatory fun that is the butt of Dilbert cartoons and TV sit coms. Knowledge management assigns communities because it sees knowledge as a hierarchy. Social media allows them to emerge as a property of the purpose and the participation using the tools. This lack of structure creates the space for active and innovative communities.

Making these factors work and create mass collaboration involves more than building technology and telling people to participate. It involves a range of vision, strategy and management actions that we will discuss in subsequent blog posts. The point here is that while they may seem similar, knowledge management and social media are not the same. Recognizing the differences is a crucial step to getting value out of both and avoiding a struggle of one over the other. It is a step to becoming a social organization.

http://chieftech.com.au/post/nancy-dixon-explains-3rd-era-knowledge-management