INTRODUCTION:Long before Knowledge Management became a term du jour, the industrialist giant, Andrew Carnegie, said, The only

irreplaceable capital an organization possesses is the knowledge and ability of its people. The productivity of that capital depends on how effectively people share their competence with those who can use it. The author of modern management, Peter Drucker, wrote, The basic economic resource the means of productionis no longer capital, nor natural resources, nor labor. It is and will be knowledge. Even the genius of Charles Darwin makes the point, It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. In this age, the only constant is change. Beside the well known changes in technology, there are continuing changes politically, socially, and economically. The ability of an organization to stay current and stay relevant requires a core competence in Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management can transform your organization to new levels of effectiveness, efficiency, and scope of operation. Through advancements in technology, data and information are readily available. The modern business manager is able to discover and learn new measures, new technologies, and new opportunities, but this requires the ability to gather information in usable formats and disseminate knowledge to achieve the organizations objectives. Knowledge Management is continually discovering what an organization knows codifying tacit knowledge, Data Mining, and Business Intelligence; continually increasing what the organization knowsorganizational learning and communities of practice, and continually organizing and disseminating explicit knowledge for use throughout the organization.

Review of the Literature:1

Knowledge management is a key concept in todays business world. Evidence of this fact is apparent if one only peruses the current business, management, and organization literature. On the surface, it looks as if knowledge management just appeared toward the end of the 1990s. Some regard knowledge management as a business fad or craze, but a closer examination of the concept reveals that there has been considerable thought and research into it, and many of the worlds most successful corporations, businesses, and organizations are investing considerable resources in this enterprise . Prusak (1999) estimates that approximately 80% of the Global 1000 businesses are conducting knowledge projects, and that approximately 68% of the Fortune 1000 have defined knowledge projects underway. Attendance at knowledge conference Many of the practices set up in organizations can be broadly construed as contributing to the knowledge agenda. These knowledge projects range from setting up an intranet, using Lotus Notes or other team-oriented software, creating personal development plans, mentoring, or sharing information on best practices. Increasingly, organizations are creating specific initiatives or programs with a knowledge focus. Knowledge teams and knowledge leaders are emerging, but very few organizations are applying knowledge management throughout their organizations has reached over 10,000 in the U.S. alone. There are at least six knowledge management newsletters, one fully developed knowledge management magazine Why are businesses and organizations devoting considerable money, time, and effort into knowledge management projects? The answer is they want to survive. McCampbell, Clare, and Glitters (1999) maintain that in an economy of uncertainty, the only sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge. Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization, and quickly embody it in new technologies and products They argue that the new business environment is characterized by radical and discontinuous change. The environment requires organization members to anticipate changes and carry out a faster cycle of knowledge creation and action based on the new knowledge . The McCampbell et al. characterization of the business world is also true for society at large (1999). Operating any organization in the information age is a challenge made more difficult by the instantaneous nature of the flow of information. Drucker (1993) calls our world a post-capitalist society, and in his writing about the economic, political, and social transformations taking place, he identifies a primary characteristic and resource knowledge .The post-capitalist society differs from past eras in how knowledge is applied. In the early As Skyrme and Amidon (1999) write, the knowledge agenda is new, yet not new.

Most organizations are already involved in managing knowledge and have been for a long time. Many of them, however, do not realize the full extent of what they are undertaking. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the concept of knowledge management, identify key terms and concepts related to knowledge management, trace the history of the study of knowledge management, and explain the major areas of study and thought related to the phenomenon. part of the 20th Century, the industrial revolution applied knowledge to the use of tools, processes and products. The productivity revolution began when people applied knowledge to human behavior. Post-capitalist society is characterized by the fact that knowledge is being applied to knowledge itself . While there are many organizations undertaking knowledge management projects, there is dispute over what exactly knowledge management is. Some in the field define knowledge management simply as information that has value for action, but others, like Snowden (1999), maintain that knowledge management is not that simple. He writes that it is the identification, optimization, and active management of intellectual assets, either in the form of explicit knowledge held in artifacts or as trait knowledge possessed by individuals or communities Swan et al. (1999) explain that knowledge management is about harnessing the intellectual and social capital of individuals in order to improve organizational learning capabilities, recognizing that knowledge, and not simply information, is the primary source of an organizations innovative potential . One cannot get a clear picture of knowledge management without studying the concepts of knowledge and information and other related terms. Much of the confusion that surrounds knowledge management is due to scholars varied opinions on distinguishing knowledge from information. The misconception that the two terms are interchangeable can have disastrous effects in the business world. The confusion between knowledge and information has caused managers to sink billions of dollars in information technology ventures that have yielded marginal results .Snowden (1999) claims that it is not necessary to define knowledge, but points out that it is important to distinguish it from information. Other researchers find it necessary to have a thorough understanding of all elements that make up knowledge management. Davenport, De Long, and Beers (1999) claim that knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection . Prusak (1999) describes knowledge as a human trait or attribute , distinguishing it from information in that only a human can obtain knowledge. For example, a bookshelf can contain many volumes of books on a particular subject. It can be said that the bookshelf contains a lot of information, but one cannot claim that the bookshelf is knowledgeable. Sveiby (1999) carries the definition a little farther by describing it as an activity and a process of knowing .
3

The term activity brings up the notion of action, which Nurmi (1999) mentions in his definition of knowledge: Knowledge is something that is acted upon, that has an effect on the way things are. We are not interested in information that lies passive on shelves, in files, or in archives. A knowledge business is created when the know-how inside the firm and the needs of customers outside the firm meet. Nurmis definition brings up the notion of know-how, which is akin to the deeper type of knowledge characterized by Ikujiro Nonaka, a business management expert and scholar from Japan. Nonaka (1994) writes that information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder. He also maintains the most important element in knowledge is action. Nonaka and Konno (1999) categorize knowledge as either explicit or tacit. Explicit knowledge can be thought of as knowledge that can be expressed in terms of words and numbers. It can be shared in the form of data. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is highly personal, hard to formalize, and difficult to communicate. Much of Nonakas work is based upon the knowledge theories of Polyani (1966), who first came up with the idea of tacit knowledge. He declared that we have examples of knowing, both of a more intellectual and more practical knowing. One can also see the similarity between the intellectual knowing and Nurmis know-how mentioned in the paragraph above. Polyani further states that the two aspects of knowing have a similar structure, and that neither is present without the other . His explanation of tacit knowledge, we can know more than we can tell , is best illustrated by police identification techniques. If an individual is trying to identify a criminal but cannot fully describe him, the police might use a data base of images of facial parts such as eyes, nose, and mouth. They will then show those to the individual, who will pick through the choices until he arrives at something similar to the features of the criminal he remembers. In other words, the individual knows the information; he just cannot relate it without that process. This illustration not only points out what tacit knowledge is, it also demonstrates that tacit knowledge can be conveyed through some type of process. Nonaka (1994) expands on Polyanis notion of tacit knowledge by asserting that tacit information has both cognitive and technical elements. Cognitive elements can be thought of as mental models in which people form models of the world. They can manipulate these models to help define their world. The technical element is know-how or skills that apply to a specific context . Snowden (1999) helps further clarify the concepts of tacit and explicit knowledge by relating how each particular type of knowledge is evoked. He writes that the optimization of explicit knowledge is achieved by the consolidation and making available of artifacts. The optimization of tacit knowledge is achieved through the creation of communities to hold, share, and grow the tacit knowledge.
4

While knowledge management scholars have spent considerable energy into debating and defining knowledge, much less is written on the term management. Alvesson and Karreman (2001) assert this is because most researchers believe that the idea of management is something that makes common sense. There seems to be a general consensus among scholars that management involves planning, organizing, coordinating, and controlling work.

History of Knowledge Management:5

The study of knowledge dates back to ancient Greece. Even before that, knowledge was at least implicitly managed as people performed work. Early hunters, for example learned the best skills and practices for a successful hunt. These skills and techniques transferred from one generation to the next. This illustrates the transfer of knowledge, a knowledge management activity. The actual study of knowledge management is much more recent. Like the study of communication, it has roots in many other areas of studybusiness, management, sociology, and economics to name just a few. Drucker (1999) argues that knowledge management is based largely on the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor, who studied manual workers. During the 19th Century, economists argued about differences in the skill level of workers. When considering productivity, they categorized workers as either hard workers or lazy workers. Taylor did not agree with this line of thought and examined the inefficiencies in how workers performed their jobs. He did this by recording motions necessary to accomplish the task and then eliminating unnecessary steps and then designing or redesigning tools, if necessary, to assist the worker in accomplishing his task. Taylor found that the traditional tools were not always the best tools for the job, and he received input from the workers on what might work better. Taylor pointed out that very little skill is involved in production. He claimed that what makes workers productive is knowledge. While the names for this emerging discipline have changed and the concepts and theories have evolved over the years from Taylor-Task Analysis to Task Management to Scientific Management to Industrial Engineering, Drucker argues that Taylors work is the foundation of knowledge management.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

6

The knowledge-based economy in the intelligence age is moving forward at a very rapid pace, especially with the role played by information technology which acts as a catalyst to the development of knowledge. It has become a business phenomenon for the knowledge management (KM) paradigm to play a vital role in the success of an organization in the global market. However, KM is a very difficult mechanism to define as academicians and practitioners tend to perceive differently about organizational knowledge based on their interests and disciplines. Researchers in the Management Information Systems (MIS) discipline tend to define information technology (IT) enabled KM as a system component that can be stored and utilized, while those in Strategy and Management disciplines view KM as a collection of processes that can be created and managed based on individual and organizational core competencies such as skills and know-how. Even though there has been a set of widely recognized criteria useful for evaluating the success of KM. There has been no investigation as to how organizations that have not been engaged in KM perceive success factors of KM differently than organizations that have implemented KM in terms of success factors. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify differences between the perceived success (organizations without KM) and the actual success variables for KM program (organizations with KM).

What is KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT?

7

Knowledge:8

suppliers and customers.

Management:9

A Working Definition:-

10

Why is KM being widely adopted now?

11

Purpose of Knowledge Management:-

The main purpose of the Knowledge Management System:-

The purpose of knowledge management in business applications:-

12

Delivering customer value:-

Product innovation and delivery:-

Improved organizational effectiveness:-

13

What does Knowledge Management consist of?

The main process to create knowledge

14

15

Knowledge Conversion and Creation:As explained previously in this review, explicit knowledge can be shared through communication and media, but that is difficult in the case of tacit knowledge. Nevertheless, tacit knowledge can sometimes be communicated through shared understanding between individuals. In other cases, tacit knowledge must be converted into explicit knowledge before it can be shared.In fact, Nonaka (1994) proposes that there are four modes of knowledge conversion: from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, from tacit to explicit, and from explicit to tacit. In the first mode, tacit to tacit, knowledge can be converted through sharing and interaction between individuals. The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience, since it is difficult for humans to convey or explain tacit knowledge. An example of this is teaching a child to ride a bike. While the adult can easily show the child how to ride, it is difficult for the adult to put the instructions into words. Nonaka calls this mode socialization. The second mode of knowledge conversion, explicit to explicit, involves social interactions to reconfigure existing information through sorting, categorizing, adding and recontextualizing explicit knowledge. Nonaka refers to this process as combination. The third and fourth modes expand over time and through a process of mutual interaction between individuals. Conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit is called externalization, and explicit knowledge to tacit is called internalization. Nonaka refers to this as the SECI process, or Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization process. Two main areas knowledge management practices focus on are the sharing of existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge. The creation of new knowledge often proves to be the most valuable practice in the long run. The process of knowledge creation happens with the transfer of whats inside a persons head (his or her tacit knowledge thoughts, ideas, actions, and experiences melded with information) to another individual or group in such a way that the recipients future actions and decisions are influenced. Nonaka and Konno (1999) describe knowledge creation as a spiraling process of interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge.

16

Other Related Concepts:Closely related to knowledge management is organizational learning. Levitt and March (1988) explain that experiential lessons in an organization are: Captured by routines in a way that makes the lessons, but not the history, accessible to organizations and organizational members who have not themselves experienced the history. Routines are transmitted through socialization, education, imitation, professionalization, personnel movement, mergers, and acquisitions. They are recorded in a collective memory that is often coherent but is sometimes jumbled, that often endures but is sometimes lost . Organizational learning and knowledge management are heavily dependent on organizational memory, which emphasizes the support of the human user by providing, maintaining, and distributing relevant information and knowledge. While organizational memory depends on the individual memories of organization members, the rules, procedures, beliefs, and cultures are preserved over time through socialization and control. However, organizational memory should not be a passive information system, but must be an intelligent assistant to the. Abecker et al. (1999) created a model to show how organizational memory assists knowledgemanagement activities. Another term that is closely related to knowledge management is knowledge packaging. Knowledge packaging translates and structures information into usable knowledge. This concept entails filtering, editing or organizing pieces of knowledge. Knowledge packaging is important, because if the knowledge is not packaged in a manner that promotes easy use, organization members will not use it, and knowledge is less likely to be shared. Myers and Swanborg (1999) identify six steps to ensure packaging of knowledge will be successful. First is identifying knowledge. In this step, one identifies specific topics or general domains and then finds knowledge that addresses those subjects. The second step is to segment the audience. This entails identifying target recipients for the knowledge and sorting them in groups by their respective needs. The third step is to customize the content. In this step, one selects relevant information from the knowledge base and tailors it with the appropriate level of detail for each segment. Fourth is to choose the appropriate format, such as paper, electronic, video, or multimedia. In the fifth step, one organizes the content. In this step, one lays out the table of contents, index, or search engine. Finally, the last step is to market-test the format and content. In this step, one has a pilot group check the knowledge package for clarity, usability and overall value.

17

Technological Aspects of Knowledge Management:Many organizations rely heavily on computers, intranets, and the internet for knowledge packaging. In fact, much of the credit for the widespread use of knowledge management theories and practices must go to the development of the worldwide web because the internet has made the world increasingly smaller in its short history. The internet began in 1969 as a Pentagon-sponsored program called the Advanced Research Projects Agency. It began as a loose confederation of interconnected computer networks to help military contractors share large sets of data. By the early 1980s, universities and research laboratories were using it as well. With the transition from mainframe computers to personal computers in the mid to late 1980s, businesses began to use the internet too. By 1997, there were more than 35 million users. The surge in information flow and connectivity has allowed individuals and organizations to share a great volume of information and knowledge in a manner that had never been possible. Information technology has become a key in the implementation of knowledge management. ITs role is emerging as an integrator of communications technology, rather than solely a keeper of information. The critical role for IT lies in its ability to support communication, collaboration, and those searching for knowledge and information . Information technology and the advent of the personal computer have greatly enhanced organizational effectiveness, interorganizational deployment, and cognitive advance. Another area of communication that information technology has drastically impacted is social activity. Computer networks provide a means to break down stovepipes, or hierarchical barriers, that often inhibit the flow of free thinking, knowledge, and innovation, or the creation of knowledge. There are, however, some difficulties caused by the use of information technology in knowledge management practices. First of all, information technology leads to misconceptions about the differences between information and knowledge. Organizations often store heavy loads of information or data and mistakenly think they are fostering the flow of knowledge. Quite a few of these projects include work focused on data warehousing, installation of Lotus Notes, building intranets and developing document and intellectual capital applications all of which bear a definite but somewhat distant relationship to knowledge . A second challenge occurs when organizations view knowledge work as done once the information technology application becomes technologically operational. In reality, this is just the beginning of the knowledge project. Constructing an information technology infrastructure for knowledge does not, in itself, guarantee that organization members will use the system. Finally, some organizations rely too heavily on information technology and not enough on the social aspects of sharing knowledge.
18

Swan et al. (1999) illustrate this point with a study they performed on two business firms which were each making an effort to capitalize on its organizations knowledge. Each firm had a central office with other offices spread out over a large geographic area. One firm relied solely on information technology in establishing an intranet. The company paid very little attention to the social networks of the organization and basically left it up to individual offices to create their own intranet and link to the others. As a result, the firm created an incompatible series of individual intranets, and there was no evidence that the intranet had promoted any sharing of knowledge. In contrast to the first firm, the second firm sought wide representation from the various sub-organizations and social networks in its organization. The organization members created a system that met their needs and was easy for them to use. Plus, the second firms intranet augmented already existing social networks. This effort did result in knowledge sharing. The mistake of the first firm was in not recognizing the need for creating shared understanding through networking and social coordination.

Learning technologies and techniques:Knowledge Master, an advanced concept mapping tool based on knowledge management. Learning itself is naturally constrained by the cognitive and psychological characteristics of human perception, comprehension and thinking. An effective learning technology needs to be based on human learning and cognitive processes. Knowledge Master is designed on concepts and methods from human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, human factors, artificial intelligence and psycholinguistics. Its success is due to its extraordinary capacity of adaptation to the learner's needs and modern communication resources. While the traditional concept mapping techniques fall short of supporting deep and accelerated learning, distance learning, or the inclusive classroom, knowledge management methods and strategies on concept maps enable deep interaction with knowledge. Special attention is paid to the student-computer dialog, independently of age or contents. The shift in information transmission media (from printed to electronic) hThese are the benefits which will have an impact on the way an organization thinks and operates to achieve its objective, for example, to provide quality education, quality products and services, or quality programs to bring about the good of civil society.

19

Social Aspect of Knowledge Management:The example above leads to the importance of the social aspect of knowledge sharing to an organizations knowledge management program. It is important to remember that ideas form in the minds of individuals, and the interaction between individuals is a key to developing further ideas or knowledge. The tradition is that knowledge is transferred in a social context . Examples of this are the language people speak or the tone in which they speak to another individual. The social context often times dictates meaning. Without face-to-face, social contact, some knowledge might not be shared because it can only be conveyed in person. Skyrme and Amidon (1999) shed more light on this notion by explaining that knowledge management is not a systematic discipline and takes into consideration people, management, and organizational culture as well as technology infrastructure. In fact, our research shows that it is the approach to the human and organizational factorsthat is the determining factor in achieving a successful outcome from a knowledge program . Echeverri-Carroll (1999) found interorganizational social networking to be particularly beneficial for organizations. Specifically, she discovered that firms that establish partnership relationships involving frequent exchange of informationtend to develop products and processes faster than their competitors who do not establish these types of relationships. Weik and Roberts (1993) go to great lengths to point out that organizations are collections of individuals, and therefore socially oriented. In their study of flight deck operations, they use the term collective mind instead of the commonly-used term organizational mind to illustrate the point .

Knowledge Management Practices:20

Knowledge management is a concept rooted in practicality and chiefly used in the business world. According to Wiig (1997), people and organizations practice knowledge management to achieve two main objectives. The first is to make the enterprise act as intelligently as possible to secure its viability and overall success. The second objective is to gain understanding of the best value of knowledge assets. While the primary users of knowledge management reside in the corporate community, other organizations can benefit greatly from the practice. Davenport et al. identify four types of knowledge management projects. Creating knowledge repositories focuses on establishing databases or files of external knowledge, structured internal knowledge such as research reports, and informal internal knowledge like lessons learned. The second type of project is improving knowledge access. The third is to enhance the knowledge environment. The final type of project is managing knowledge as an asset. Skyrme and Amidon (1999) declare that any knowledge management project requires a systematic and holistic view of the knowledge agenda. This means the team undertaking the project must understand the strategic role of the knowledge they are managing, how that knowledge is linked to key management decisions and processes, and how to improve knowledge creation, sharing, and use. Skyrme and Amidon (1999) point out seven critical factors to a successful knowledge management effort: 1. Strong link to a business imperative. 2. Compelling vision and architecture. 3. Knowledge leadershipthe support of top management. 4. Knowledge-creating and sharing culture. 5. Continuous learning at all levels and among individuals and teams. 6. Well developed technology infrastructure. 7. Systematic organizational knowledge process . Along the same line, McCampbell et al. (1999) state in their study that teams, relationships, and networks are the basis for effective knowledge transfer and sharing . As a contrast, Lucier and Torsilieri (1999) conducted studies on several knowledge projects and discovered four common traits in the less successful programs: 1. No specific business objective, but only general aspirations.
21

2. Incomplete program architecture that applies some principles of effective learning but does not build on the linked natural dynamics of organization change and knowledge creation and use. 3. Insufficient focus on one or two strategic priorities. 4. Top management sponsorship without active, ongoing involvement .

Future Considerations for Knowledge Management:22

In spite of a number of people viewing knowledge management as a passing business fad, the concept is an emerging discipline, which arose from a need for businesses to stay competitive in an information age post-capitalist society. As the field matures, knowledge management compels one to examine all approaches to sharing information and knowledge, informal and formal, social and technological. It fosters creativity and innovation. As technology develops even further, organizations will make new advances in transferring, sharing, and creating knowledge. Even today, businesses are improving artificial intelligence systems in order to capture and provide access to problem resolution, legal knowledge, and new concept development. Nevertheless, knowledge management requires attention and discipline. It requires considerable effort on the part of workers and managers alike, but the positive effects of knowledge management are evident by an internal and external awareness of collective strength and the ability to respond and instantly organize to meet demands and opportunities.

BENEFITS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: In a constantly evolving and competitive environment, organizations are
23

faced with the problem of having to continuously improve in the area of creating innovative products and service that would meet the constantly evolving needs and wants of their customers. Patronage from customers is the only way ahead for the success of any organization both small and big. Considering the huge number of physical files in an organization example, as the databases are organized the decision maker has the necessary information and knowledge to substantiate or justify research and development initiatives that leads to more innovations which in turn leads to the creation of new products and services. These initiatives may seem a bit costlier for the company in the beginning stages. But if these initiatives when looked at on a long-term perspective help the organization to create products and services and then sell them to a market that needs or wants them. This helps the organization to actually reap the rewards of satisfied customers translating into increased sales revenues which helps offset the initial capital sunk into the research and development initiatives. as made it necessary to educate in the interpretation of images and visual representations, to visual learning (even though this is usually instinctive), but to follow the rhythm of modern evolution, more than transferring information, it is necessary to stimulate creativity and the ability of autonomous orientation, personal thinking abilities, but also the ability of collaborating with others.

Developing a Context:24

Like water, this rising tide of data can be viewed as an abundant, vital and necessary resource. With enough preparation, we should be able to tap into that reservoir -and ride the wave -- by utilizing new ways to channel raw data into meaningful information. That information, in turn, can then become the knowledge that leads to wisdom. Les Alberthal. Before attempting to address the question of knowledge management, it's probably appropriate to develop some perspective regarding this stuff called knowledge, which there seems to be such a desire to manage, really is. Consider this observation made by Neil Flemingas a basis for thought relating to the following diagram.
o o o o

A collection of data is not information. A collection of information is not knowledge. A collection of knowledge is not wisdom. A collection of wisdom is not truth.

The idea is that information, knowledge, and wisdom are more than simply collections. Rather, the whole represents more than the sum of its parts and has a synergy of its own.

We begin with data, which is just a meaningless point in space and time, without reference to either space or time. It is like an event out of context, a letter out of context, a word out of context. The key concept here being "out of context." And, since it is out of context, it is without a meaningful relation to anything else. When we encounter a piece of data, if it gets our attention at all, our first action is usually to attempt to find a way to attribute meaning to it. We do this by associating it with other things. If I see the number 5, I can immediately associate it with cardinal numbers and relate it to being greater than 4 and less than 6, whether this was implied by this particular instance or not. If I see a single word, such as "time," there is a tendency to immediately form associations with previous contexts within which
25

I have found "time" to be meaningful. This might be, "being on time," "a stitch in time saves nine," "time never stops," etc. The implication here is that when there is no context, there is little or no meaning. So, we create context but, more often than not, that context is somewhat akin to conjecture, yet it fabricates meaning. That a collection of data is not information, as Neil indicated, implies that a collection of data for which there is no relation between the pieces of data is not information. The pieces of data may represent information, yet whether or not it is information depends on the understanding of the one perceiving the data. I would also tend to say that it depends on the knowledge of the interpreter, but I'm probably getting ahead of myself, since I haven't defined knowledge. What I will say at this point is that the extent of my understanding of the collection of data is dependent on the associations I am able to discern within the collection. And, the associations I am able to discern are dependent on all the associations I have ever been able to realize in the past. Information is quite simply an understanding of the relationships between pieces of data, or between pieces of data and other information. While information entails an understanding of the relations between data, it generally does not provide a foundation for why the data is what it is, nor an indication as to how the data is likely to change over time. Information has a tendency to be relatively static in time and linear in nature. Information is a relationship between data and, quite simply, is what it is, with great dependence on context for its meaning and with little implication for the future. Beyond relation there is pattern, where pattern is more than simply a relation of relations. Pattern embodies both a consistency and completeness of relations which, to an extent, creates its own context. Pattern also serves as an Archetype with both an implied repeatability and predictability. When a pattern relation exists amidst the data and information, the pattern has the potential to represent knowledge. It only becomes knowledge, however, when one is able to realize and understand the patterns and their implications. The patterns representing knowledge have a tendency to be more self-contextualizing. That is, the pattern tends, to a great extent, to create its own context rather than being context dependent to the same extent that information is. A pattern which represents knowledge also provides, when the pattern is understood, a high level of reliability or predictability as to how the pattern will evolve over time, for patterns are seldom static. Patterns which represent knowledge have a completeness to them that information simply does not contain. Wisdom arises when one understands the foundational principles responsible for the patterns representing knowledge being what they are. And wisdom, even more so than knowledge, tends to create its own context. I have a preference for referring to these foundational principles as eternal truths, yet I find people have a tendency to be somewhat uncomfortable with this labeling. These foundational principles are universal and completely context independent. Of course, this last statement is sort
26

of a redundant word game, for if the principle was context dependent, then it couldn't be universally true now could it? So, in summary the following associations can reasonably be made:

Information relates to description, definition, or perspective (what, who, when, where). Knowledge comprises strategy, practice, method, or approach (how). Wisdom embodies principle, insight, moral, or archetype (why).

Extending the Concept:We learn by connecting new information to patterns that we already understand. In doing so, we extend the patterns. So, in my effort to make sense of this continuum, I searched for something to connect it to that already made sense. And, I related it to Csikszentmihalyi's interpretation of complexity.
27

Csikszentmihalyi provides a definition of complexity based on the degree to which something is simultaneously differentiated and integrated. His point is that complexity evolves along a corridor and he provides some very interesting examples as to why complexity evolves. The diagram below indicates that what is more highly differentiated and integrated is more complex. While high levels of differentiation without integration promote the complicated, that which is highly integrated, without differentiation, produces mundane. And, it should be rather obvious from personal experience that we tend to avoid the complicated and are uninterested in the mundane. The complexity that exists between these two alternatives is the path we generally find most attractive.

On 4/27/05 Robert Lamb commented that Csikszentmihalyi's labeling could be is bit clearer if "Differentiation" was replaced by "Many Components" and "Integration" was replaced by Highly Interconnected." Robert also commented that "Common Sense" might be another label for "Mundane." If the mundane is something we seem to avoid paying attention to then "Common Sense" might often be a very appropriate label. Thanks Robert.

28

What I found really interesting was the view that resulted when I dropped this diagram on top of the one at the beginning of this article. It seemed that "Integrated" and "Understanding" immediately correlated to each other. There was also a real awareness that "Context Independence" related to "Differentiated." Overall, the continuum of data to wisdom seemed to correlate exactly to Csikszentmihalyi's model of evolving complexity.

Rationale and Hypotheses:Based upon the literature noted in the preceding pages, one can argue that there is a need for all business firms to enhance individual and organizational knowledge. This enhancement is thought to lead to a competitive advantage in the marketplace. One could also argue that the same practices can lead to competitive advantages for all organizations, not just businesses. For instance, will the adoption
29

of knowledge management practices benefit government organizations such as the Department of Defense? By applying the principles of knowledge management and, specifically, the six steps of knowledge packaging, the authors aim to prove the following hypothesis: H1: The establishment of a knowledge-based system in which public affairs professionals throughout the Department of Defense can share knowledge and information will help public affairs professionals solve public affairs problems and challenges. Further, one must note that organizations are made up of individuals. One has learned from review of the literature that knowledge is transferred and shared between individuals in an organization. Following from the first hypothesis, the authors aim to prove through Nonakas spiral of knowledge the following hypothesis: H2: The establishment of a knowledge-based system in which public affairs professionals throughout the Department of Defense can share knowledge and information will create better performance of both individual public affairs professionals and the entire public affairs organization as a whole. What constitutes better performance? While that term is somewhat subjective, in the public affairs discipline, there are numerous indicators of better performance. It can be illustrated by faster response time, greater accuracy in response, better delivery of command messages, proactive planning instead of passive reaction, more thorough research, and sounder decision-making.

FINDINGS:217 responses out of 1000 questionnaires were used for the data analysis. The questionnaire consists of 39 attributes (questions). Attributes were developed based on literature review. The executives and managers were the primary respondents. Organizations that were not engaged in any KM arrangement did not complete the actual importance section of the questionnaire. Approximately 40% of respondents
30

indicated that their organizations plan to make a significant investment in KM within the next 2 years. A third of the organizations (29.8%) have already invested significantly in KM while 13 organizations (6.6%) have no plan to invest in KM. This means that most of these organizations (93.4%) are interested in committing organizational resources for KM.

An Example:This example uses a bank savings account to show how data, information, knowledge, and wisdom relate to principal, interest rate, and interest. Data: The numbers 100 or 5%, completely out of context, are just pieces of data. Interest, principal, and interest rate, out of context, are not much more than data as each has multiple meanings which are context dependent. Information: If I establish a bank savings account as the basis for context, then interest, principal, and interest rate become meaningful in that context with specific interpretations.

Principal is the amount of money, $100, in the savings account. Interest rate, 5%, is the factor used by the bank to compute interest on the principal.

Knowledge: If I put $100 in my savings account, and the bank pays 5% interest yearly, then at the end of one year the bank will compute the interest of $5 and add it to my principal and I will have $105 in the bank. This pattern represents knowledge, which, when I understand it, allows me to understand how the pattern will evolve over time and the results it will produce. In understanding the pattern, I know, and what I know is knowledge. If I deposit more money in my account, I will earn more interest, while if I withdraw money from my account, I will earn less interest. Wisdom: Getting wisdom out of this is a bit tricky, and is, in fact, founded in systems principles. The principle is that any action which produces a result which encourages more of the same action produces an emergent characteristic called growth. And, nothing grows forever for sooner or later growth runs into limits.

If one studied all the individual components of this pattern, which represents knowledge, they would never discover the emergent characteristic of growth. Only when the pattern connects, interacts, and evolves over time, does the principle exhibit the characteristic of growth.

31

Note: If the mechanics of this diagram are unfamiliar, you can find the basis in Systems Thinking Introduction.

Now, if this knowledge is valid, why doesn't everyone simply become rich by putting money in a savings account and letting it grow? The answer has to do with the fact that the pattern described above is only a small part of a more elaborate pattern which operates over time. People don't get rich because they either don't put money in a savings account in the first place, or when they do, in time, they find things they need or want more than being rich, so they withdraw money. Withdrawing money depletes the principal and subsequently the interest they earn on that principal. Getting into this any deeper is more of a systems thinking exercise than is appropriate to pursue here.

CONCLUSION:The project on KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT gives the knowledge about the requirement of KM in todays organizations. How KM help top and lower level managers to expand their knowledge and work according to the new technologies adopted by the organizations.
32

The attributes that are associated with benchmarking ("encouraging employees to benchmark other organization's best practices," "providing guidelines to operate a benchmarking," and "supporting utilization of a knowledge-related measurement mechanism") were also not implemented to the degree that they were perceived as important. This is also inevitable because, like information systems, benchmarking is not applicable unless an organization begins to establish a KM program. Likewise, the other attribute, "access to the majority of knowledge within organization," is possible only after the implementation of a KM program. Thus, it is logical to conclude most respondents did not seem to understand the gap between perceived success and actual success of KM because most organizations have not yet started to establish or implement KM. On the other hand, five attributes (such as, "policies to improve worklife," "organizational support to seek human values of employees," "encouraging employees to participate in internal and external new learning opportunities," "supporting team-based approaches to problem solving," and "top management encouragement toward formal/informal communication") that are related to KM friendly organizational culture, human resource activity support, and top management commitment were implemented to the degree that they were perceived as important. Many empirical studies about innovations like, BPR (Business Process Reengineering) and TQM (Total Quality Management) have confirmed that cultural and top management support with appropriate training and teamwork promotion are the most common formulas to succeed from the initiation to implementation. KM is another emerging innovation, and it shares very similar success variables with BPR and TQM in terms of the perspectives of cultural support, top management support, appropriate training, and teamwork promotion. It seems respondents' viewpoints are also consistent with the results of much other research, which, since most respondents are executives familiar with the research in their fields, is hardly surprising. In addition, these same executives are fully aware that a KM program needs fundamental organizational commitment like innovations such as BPR and TQM. Especially, It is interesting to observe that respondents are deeply aware of importance of knowledge sharing with supplier. This phenomenon implies that the spectrum of KM should not be limited to within an organization.

33