Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Module question 3
Compare and contrast knowledge management and the
learning
1. Introduction
The question that this paper addresses is which of LO and KM offers the
most utility to the HRD practitioner and why. Before this paper reaches
any conclusions, it is essential to provide a thorough comparison between
LO and KM in order to identify the chief differences and similarities of the
aforementioned concepts. This comparison will be made in such a way to
provide evidence that LO and KM needs the one the other (Loermans,
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 1
DSS M2C2
2002), as Aggestam (2006: 295) vividly illustrates with the question in her
article’s title “LO or KM – Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 2
DSS M2C2
3. Defining LO and KM
According to the definition above, individuals who feel that they belong to
a community of learners, function and share common goals, and business
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 3
DSS M2C2
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 4
DSS M2C2
To sum up, the LO concept has the potentiality to further OL while it can
also generate conflicts and misunderstandings among employees. When a
learning practice is not set up correctly, and the administration fails to
manage the generated knowledge, employees have hard time to
comprehend the need to learn. This is when the concept of KM is being
introduced.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 5
DSS M2C2
was a shift from the efficient worker to the intelligent one who applies
and synthesizes knowledge.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 6
DSS M2C2
It is hard for anyone to claim that certain systems and techniques have
the ability to control personal knowledge and make it publicly accessible
and usable. Even the expression “manage knowledge” implies domination
and control over a vague concept that is primarily owned by the
individuals. Employees view the rules and norms in organisations as the
formal information that everybody has to know. Hence, anything else in
regard to their personal experience they gained through work is
considered tacit knowledge which is non-measurable and therefore not
shared.
In the view of losing their personal expertise which employees have coped
to gain, individuals become skeptic and resistant to KM. Moreover, when
administrations apply KM practices that are technology based, a great
level of employees who are not computer literates might misunderstand
and feel threatened by such efforts (Ardichvili, et.al, 2006). To those
employees who are resistant to KM, the common perception is that it is at
least unfair to share something that they have gained with great effort.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 7
DSS M2C2
So far this paper has argued that LO and KM are interdependent. Only
when the two concepts are combined, the HRD practitioner can identify a
valuable tool to manage the resources (KM) of the learning process (LO).
By examining the chief differences between the two concepts, the level of
their interdependence becomes more obvious. The main difference is on
each concept’s focus. The LO focuses on how to develop knowledge
through a systematic learning process [acquire knowledge]. In contrast,
the KM focuses on how organisations can manage the result of this
systematic learning process to make it usable by all members within an
organisation [share knowledge].
Both LO and KM focus on work processes. Literature has shown that both
concepts stress the importance of integrating learning into an
organisation’s every day practices (Aggestam, 2006). Both concepts also
recognize the role of learning in the overall organisational development.
As it has already been mentioned in this paper, OL is a process to achieve
knowledge that KM aims to use and share among the members of any LO.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 8
DSS M2C2
The second factor of KM failure refers to culture (Chua and Lam, 2005).
Examples of cases that KM practices were unsuccessfully applied by HRD
practitioners include the issues of politics and power relations among the
organisations’ human assets and organisational behavior. In many cases,
the use of KM practices might lead to misinterpretations in regard to who
is committed to the organisation, who fits to the overall organisational
culture, or who from the employees is insufficient to follow a certain way
of thought.
Finally, as Chua and Lam (2005) argue, a failure factor for the application
of KM is the problematic project management. When employees who
participate in KM initiatives are asked to relocate or resign during an on
process KM implementation, the administration sends vague messages
that can be misinterpreted by employees. It is negatively commented
when employees are asked to postpone their everyday business tasks in
order to participate in KM practices. These employees feel that their
important business tasks are left behind while they are forced to spend
their working time in explaining how they work to others. Finally, many
organisations miss to actually evaluate the results of KM practices or to
measure any personal or organisational achievement. This ultimately
leads to misinterpretations as to the functions and usability of similar
practices.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 9
DSS M2C2
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 10
DSS M2C2
In conclusion, it is rather unrealistic for anyone to claim that the full use of
KM tools will further organisational knowledge. Where the LO required a
strong administration commitment in which power relations take place to
convince and motivate employees to learn new concepts, KM appeared
more practical with the introduction of technology. However, this paper
showed through various cases on the literature that technology-based or
even web-based KM tools, such as the BlackBoard, require much more
than good faith. Knowledge is being pursued by individuals with great
effort. In our contemporary times of uncertainty and competitiveness,
people hesitate to openly give their knowledge away. It seems, however,
that the combination of the use of technology-based KM practices from
one side with a softer LO approach that emphasizes on culture
management, communities of practice, and emotional awareness
initiatives might offer the most reliable and valid answer to the HRD
practitioner.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 11
DSS M2C2
References
Bassie, L, Cheney, S., & Lewis, E (1998) Trends in Workplace Learning: Supply and
Demand in Interesting Times, Training and Development, 52(11), p51-54,56-
60,62-64,66-75.
Chua, A., Wing, Lam.: ‘Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9, 3 (2005), 6-17.
Davenport, T. and L. Prusak (1998) “What do we talk about when we talk about
knowledge?” in Chapter 1 of Working knowledge How Organisations manage what
they know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press: pp.1-24.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 12
DSS M2C2
Prahalad, C.K., and G. Hamel (1994) "Strategy as Field of Study: Why Search for a
New Paradigm?" Strategic Management Journal.
Senge, P. (1990) “The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning
Organisation”, Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
Skok, W. (2003) ‘Knowledge Management: New York City Cab Case Study’
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 10, No2.
Skyrme D.J. and D.M. Amidon (1997) ‘Business Intelligence: Creating the
Knowledge-based Business’, retrieved from
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/book/t_davenport_1.html?
CFID=71774336&CFTOKEN=39223392 [21-12-09]
Van Gigch, J.P. (1991) System Design Modeling and Meta-modeling. Plenum Press,
New York.
Van Zolingen, S., J. Ingelgard, J. Roth (2001) ‘Gendering knowledge: the practice
of knowledge management in the pharmaceutical industry’, Knowledge and
Process Management, 8 (2): 65-74.
Wakefield, J. (2008) ‘Google your way to a wacky office’ retrieved from BBC’s
official website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7290322.stm [22-12-09].
Wang, C. L. and P.K. Ahmed (2003) ‘Knowledge management: the challenges for
human resource management’, Journal of Quality Science, 1(1):17-26.
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 13
DSS M2C2
Stavros Papakonstantinidis 14