Can Social Network Tools support Knowledge Management Environment?

[ 04 ] - Can Social Network Tools support Knowledge Management Environment?


4.1 – Brief Review

Over the past few years, “the web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, re-purposed and passed along” (Downes, 2005). Nowadays we are entering a new phase of web evolution “the read-write Web. A new generation of user-centric, open, dynamic web, with peer production, sharing, collaboration, collective intelligence, distributed content and decentralized authority in the foreground. This new web generation has been referred to as Web 2.0” (O’Reilly, 2005).

Social Network Tools can be used as a tool for expanding human social and collaborative abilities, as a medium for facilitating social connection and information interchange and finally it can be leads to Knowledge creation.

In my view Social Network Tools can be support Knowledge Management Environment and I would like to explain my viewpoint with real life examples.

NOTE: - In my previous blog I have explained in details how some of these social network tools help for Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Framework or Nonaka's SECI Model Theory in Knowledge Management. (Please refer the 1st point of the blog called “"A Critique of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory" – Reply to Prof. Mark Woodman’s comment.”)


4.2 – Critical Analysis

I would like to analyze how some of these Social Networks tools fit in to Nonaka's SECI Model Theory in Knowledge Management. Below table shows how some of the Social networks tools associated with Nonaka's SECI process of Knowledge Creation.

Example for “Externalization” process - Wikis

Wikis are good examples of the collective intelligence at work. They provide an opportunity for social interaction and collaborative knowledge capturing. Knowledge can be expressed and captured through different possible modes of representation and expression including words, spoken or written; image, still and moving; video; music etc.

In our knowledge management class we can have a Wiki in order to students to post their work so that lectures and classmates can correct, improve, and discuss their work and share knowledge as a team. (Ex: wikispace, Windows SharePoint,)

Example for “Combination” process - RSS (Really Simple Syndication)

RSS is a successful technology that makes it easy to share resources across networks, as it brings content from different sources (e.g. new blog posts, podcasts) to a learner’s personal space, once she/he has subscribed to the feed source. The captured information can also be managed individually or collectively. A blog is a very valuable tool for personal information management and wikis is highly effective forms of collaborative information management.


4.3 – Can S/N Tools support Knowledge Management Environment.
With my perspective,

I will discuss how different social networks tools can be used to create and share knowledge within the knowledge management environment.

In my perspective Wikis can be used to support knowledge creation and sharing in knowledge management. I will explain with an example,

EX: Use wiki as a Social Network Tool in Our Knowledge Management Group Coursework.

In a group, coordination is a key factor in order to do the work on time and accurate manner. In the last semester we had a group in order to do some course work for some other modules. In order to coordinate with each other we very oftenly used e-mails. I believe e-mail is not a good tool to coordinate group works. I believe by using a wiki web site we can coordinate our group course work following way. In wiki web site it allow to edit – rewrite and save as a normal word documents. If one member places an article regarding some thing (we say our group proposal) then other members of our team can view the web page and do some more modifications or add some more content to it very easily by using the buttons (edit/save/upload). If some member thinks some contents are not relevant and he can do the erasing and he can keep a comments regarding that issue. Therefore wiki will leads knowledge sharing and creation with in our team. In wiki support knowledge acquisition as well. We can link our contents to a various site in order to members to get idea. Therefore wiki is very easier to use and we can view up to date information. By giving access to our lecture he can also review our work and he can also give commitment to our works.

I can support my argument by following,
"Wikis are increasingly being accepted as a new breed of collaborative technology. Wiki technology can impact knowledge management, and can support knowledge creation and sharing" (Leuf and Cunningham 2001) cited by Angela Kille.




Delicious can also be use as tool for knowledge sharing.

I will consider the same our knowledge management class as a scenario.

Delicious is a social bookmaking site, this make bookmaking more useful and more organized. According to my scenario our knowledge management class can get more benefit from this. Will say all the members use this web site as a S/N tool. Since Delicious bookmaking is public we can view all the other members bookmarks and we can tag according to them. This is call social bookmaking.

Ex: We can view our lectures bookmarks in knowledge management and then those bookmarks can be benefits for others members within the class. This method provides new and relevant materials regarding the topic. Therefore it leads to share and create knowledge within this subject.

Since Delicious is a web site we can view and edit any time, anywhere because it is not depend on the computer where you have tagged.

Google reader is a web site that facilitates to read your favorite sites in a new and fast way. By having a google reader as a home page you can read your all the news, articles, new blogs which are coming from your favorite web sites with in the google reader. Therefore it time saving and fast way to access. In order to support knowledge management users can subscribe their favoourite knowledge management sites, blogs or other related site to this web page. After adding your subscription the entire favorites site will appear in your google reader’s web account. From there you can simply click on each topic in order to view and acquire explicit knowledge.

4.4 - Reflections on learning together:


· Learning out come:

In this article I have learned how Social technologies help knowledge management environment in order to share and create tacit and explicit knowledge with real life examples.
I have learned that how web 2.0 becoming people oriented.
Although we have some sophisticated technologies, face-to-face interaction is very important within an organizations in order to tacit knowledge is to derive. Because the process of acquiring knowledge is largely supported through “direct interaction with people”. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)


References

• O’Reilly, T. (2005) ‘What Is Web 2.0’, O’Reilly Network, Article.



• Downes, S. (2005) ‘E-learning 2.0’, ACM eLearn Magazine, Article.



• Angela Kille, (date unknown) Retrieved March 05, 2008, from http://libres.curtin.edu.au/libres16n1/Kille_essayopinion.htm

Communities of Practice and Social Networks

[ 03 ] - Communities of Practice and Social Networks

This article is about to discuss and understand the Social Networks and Communities of Practice and to differentiate both with real life examples.

3.1 - Review of Communities of Practice and Social Networks in literature

Knowledge is widely recognized as a critical organizational resource irrespective of economic sector or type of organization (Davenport & Prusak 1998). It is difficult, if not impossible, to maximize the value of this resource without adequate understanding of how to influence and share knowledge throughout the organization. Therefore this blog try to promote this Understanding by examining the emerging role of Social Networks and Community of Practice (CoP).

3.1.1 - What are Communities of Practice?

There has been a growing focus on the role of communities of practice (CoP) within the KM domain. CoP have been described as,

“Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly”. (Wenger 1998).

They are different from teams and functional units as they are self-organizing systems whose lifespan is determined by its members, based on the intrinsic value that membership brings. Such communities are not constrained by time and space and therefore can span organizational boundaries (Wenger 1998).

According to the Wikipedia Communities of Practice can be defined by following steps,

There will be Groups of people who come together to share and to learn from one another face-to-face and/or virtually.
They are held together by a common interest in a body of knowledge and are driven by a desire and need to share problems, experiences, and best practices.
Members deepen their knowledge by interacting on an ongoing basis.
This interaction leads to continuous learning and innovation.


What do communities of practice look like?
Communities develop their practice through a variety of activities. The following table provides a few typical examples:

Types of Communities of practice

Mainly there are two extreme of Communities of practice based on how they interact with each other in order to exchange Knowledge,

Face-to-face (Physically) -------------- Virtual Networks






Virtual Networks


In a virtual community a group of people who come together to share and to learn from one another via a communication media such as email, Blog, Forum, Discussion Boards, Wiki, videoconferencing and the services typically provides a way for members to contact friends of other members in order to share knowledge.

Note:
I will discuss this issues in detail in section 3.2 – In Critical Analysis.
Below table shows some examples for the Face-to-face and
Virtual Communities of practice at Ericsson.



Source: Magnusson & Davidsson 2004


I will discuss one of this example in details in section 3.3 – Reflection from practice.


3.1.2 - What is Social Networks?

Before step into the term “Social Networks”, first I would like to differentiate the term “Community” and “Networks”.

Siemens (2006) defines a network as connections between entities to create an integrated whole. He defines a community as the clustering of similar areas of interest that allows for interaction, sharing, dialoguing and thinking together.

Lave and Wenger (1991) point out that community does not mean necessarily co presence, a well-defined, identifiable group or socially visible boundaries. It does imply participation in an activity system about which participants share understanding concerning what they are doing and what that means in their lives and for their communities. As a special type of community, they introduce the concept of Communities of Practice (CoP).

Wenger (1998) also notes “communities and networks are everywhere. We all belong to a number of them; at work, at school, at home, in our hobbies. Some have a name and some do not. We are core members of some and we belong to others more peripherally”.

So what is Social Networks?

Professor J. A. Barnes first coined the term “Social Networks” in the 1950s – according to him “An association of people drawn together by family, work or hobby” (cited from www.pcmag.com), he defined the size of a social network as a group of about 100 to 150 people.

Social Networks can also be divided in to two based on how they interact with each other.

1. Through face to face
2. Through Digital Media

Here I can give an example for face-to-face Social Networks, which is said by a one of the member of our class (Prof. Mark Woodman, 2008) cited in Knowledge Management (waseem) blog. According to him “a party after a successfully hosted event in a hotel. The conversations and connections between people after such a party can form a social network, ……”

According to the Wikipedia A social network is “a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, idea, financial exchange, friends, dislike, conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations or disease transmissiones”

Example For Social Network tools (Also called as S/N Services or S/N Softwares),


Name Description/Focus

Broadcaster.com Video sharing and web cam chat
Classmates.com School, college, work and the military
Del.icio.us Online social bookmaking.
Digg community-based news article popularity website
Facebook General. Popular in Canada, UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand.
YouTube Video sharing.
Flickr Photo sharing
GuildCafe Online games
Hi5 General. Latin American and Asian teens.
LibraryThing Book lovers
lifeknot Shared interests, hobbies
LinkedIn Business
LiveJournal Blogging
MEETin General
MySpace General. Popular Worldwide.
MyYearbook General
WAYN Travel and lifestyle
Windows Live Spaces Blogging (formerly MSN Spaces)


3.2 – Critical Analysis

3.2.1 What is Communities of Practice in my perspective?

In my perspective Communities of Practice can be defined as “connecting people (it could be face-to-face and/or virtually) so that they collaborate, share ideas, and create knowledge for a common interest to an extended period”

In CoP they don’t have a certain goals but the do have a purpose.


Communities of practice are a more focused version of formal/informal network, and managers should regard them as company assets and look for ways to protect them. We discover how to do our jobs through informal learning; observing others, asking the person in the next cubicle, calling the help desk, trial-and-error and simply working with people in the know. Informal learning is however not restricted to a corporate context. Our academic learning also comes from different informal channels; for example, through sports event, research, experiments, story-telling and discovery. Outside the classroom boundaries, we use Google, communicate with peers, join online communities, and work on problems together, share learning resources, etc.

Comparison between Communities of practice and other kinds of groups.

Communities of practice are not a new kind of organizational unit. Rather, they are a different cut on the organization's structure–one that emphasizes the learning that people have done together rather than the unit they report to, the project they are working on, or the people they know. Communities of practice differ from other kinds of groups found in organizations in the way they define their enterprise, exist over time, and set their boundaries. The following table provides a few comparisons between them.

To differentiate between CoP and Network, Wenger (1998) states that a CoP is different from a network in the sense that it is about something; it is not just a set of relationships. It has an identity as a community, and thus shapes the identities of its members. A CoP exists because it produces a shared practice as members engage in a collective process of learning.






3.2.2 What is Social Networks in my perspective?

In my perspective Social Networks can be defined as “group of people who set up a relationships (face-to-face and/or virtually) in order to share their knowledge, ideas, informations and interest ( common or uncommon).

Interactions can be done through face to face or via some kind of Digital Technology and Telecommunication media” such as Chat, VoIP, Mobile, Technologies, Wikis, Email Video/Phone Conferencing, blogs, etc.

Social Network Tools can be divided in to two main elements.

Internal Social Networks
This is closed/private community that consists of a group of people within a company, association, society, educational institute and organization.

Ex: Wiki, Chat Room, Blogging, E-mail, Video Conferencing

The universities Oasis Plus web site (Which consist of discussion board, chat, email, etc) and Our Knowledge Management Blogs can be a proper example for this.

External Social Networks
This is open/public community and available to all web users.
Ex: Facebook, YouTube, Hi5, WAYN

Relationship between CoP and Social Networks





According to the above diagram Physical CoP and Physical S/N are both totally different activities. But nowadays-Social technologies help us to do these physical social interactions (P-CoPs or P - S/Ns) via web based without physically present. By using these social networking sites we can do virtual communities of practice as well as social networking in order to share information and knowledge.

Note: I will discuss some of these examples in details in my next article. Article 04


3.3 – Reflection from practice

3.3.1 – Real life example for CoPs

Example 01:
Here I would like to explain more on how Competence Group use Face-to-face Communities of practice at Erricson

In this scenario the main objective of this group is to improve knowledge sharing between Flow Control centers worldwide that responsible for order fulfillment and complete order flow. As I mentioned in the table they have 200 members in 14 different countries. In each country they have one Competence Group leader. These CG leaders meet once a month and all CG members meet 3-4 times a year at 2-day seminar in order to develop common terminology, processes and to discuss process improvement. In this seminar all members discuss about ongoing work and state new suggestion in order to improve their business process. By having this kind of communities of practice the Ericcson Group have improved their processes within the Flow Control centers.

Example 02: (Cap Gemini – NCN MS Electronic Community- Virtual Community)

Cap Gemini was Europe's largest information technology (IT) services and management consulting company with more than 40 offices and 4,500 employees in the Nordic region. The main objective of Cap Gemini – NCN MS Electronic Community is to provide a forum to their 345 programmers who working with Microsoft products in order to help each other to solve day-to-day problems. When the programmers come a cross particular problem they post questions on the forum in order to get a solutions from others. This forum helps each other to share their knowledge and to solve problems through posting questions.


Example 03:

Based on my organization we have an informal staff meeting every Monday morning in order to discuss, solve problems regarding any matter what we faced in previous week. (Here we mainly talk about patient care and to improve it) There all the members from different department irrespective to their job were participate to discuss their problems. Therefore by having this type of CoP it will lead to establish a good patient care environment within our organization.


3.3.2 – Real life example for Social Networks


Example 01- Our Knowledge Management Blogs


Our Knowledge Management Blog is a good example for social networking in practice. Here we post an article regarding some theory or research, and then Commenting on blog posts makes the interaction between blog-author and reader possible and this leads to interesting discussions. Then new blog-reader can join the discussion by commenting or writing a post on his or her own blog with a reference to the blog post that they want to comment on. Track backs detect these remote references and enable to establish a distributed discussion across multiple blogs. Consequently, a social network from people with similar practices or interests can be form in order to share knowledge.


Example 02 – YouTube (Video sharing)

YouTube is a video sharing website where users can upload, view and share video clips.
In YouTube web site users can simply upload important videos about conferences or presentations regarding some common topic (will say Knowledge management). Then who has similar interest in this topic can view all these videos by simply clicking on them. This can be used by organizations in order to gain and share knowledge.

Good example is, On 15 February 2008 we looked at one of the presentations by David Weinberger regarding Enterprise 2.0 - the Collaborative Technologies Conference, held on 05 June 2007 in Boston MA in our knowledge management class. Although we haven’t heard about this author and not physically presented on that day the YouTube gave the opportunity view this video and share knowledge about Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0/ Business 2.0.


3.4 - Reflections on learning together:

• Learning out come 01: What is Communities of Practice and Social Networks
  
  First I have learned what are Communities of Practice and Social Networks and their similarities and differences when compared to an organization, teams.
  § Then we compared the CoP and S/N in order to differentiate. There I have learned that CoP has a purpose, similar interest to achieve some things and doesn’t have a certain goals.
  § After having all our argument Prof. Mark explain this by giving a good example (University). He said within the university there could be no of CoPs and each CoPs have their own purpose. But university as a whole they have a one organizational goal or purpose. And he explained to have a good CoP then the university should support with appropriate Technology, Social background (By motivation, consider the culture and the values), and by having good incentives. By viewing this example I got clear idea about the two.
  § And in CoP the no of participate is smaller when compared to S/N. S/NS are widely spared through out the globe.
  § Then we have looked some examples for each and how these example help for knowledge management. (Hi, MySpace, Facebook)
  




• Learning out come 02: Type of CoPs and S/Ns with real life examples
  
  By doing research and readings I have learned different type of of CoPs and S/Ns with real life examples.
  In our seminar we looked at one of the presentations by David Weinberger in Enterprise 2.0 - the Collaborative Technologies Conference, Boston MA, June 18-21, 2007. That presentation gave me an opportunity to learn underlying concepts of Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0/ Business 2.0.
  
  
  
  References
  


• Davenport and T H & Prusak (1998) Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.



• Etienne Wenger (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge Universit



• Siemens, G. (2006) Knowing Knowledge and ISBN: 978-1-4303-0230-8.



• Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.



• Wikipedia Retrieved February 28, 2008, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_community



• Waseem, I. (2008): Web blog, Retrieved February 28 , 2008, from https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3197783362314060796&postID=5919312277231957366
  
  

Difference between Data, Information, and Knowledge

[ 02 ] - Understanding Data, Information and Knowledge and Their Inter-Relationships

The purpose of this article is to discuss the terms Data, Information, Knowledge and their inter-relationship with real life examples.

2.1 - Review of Data, Information and Knowledge in literature

Knowledge, Information, and Data are key words and also fundamental concepts in knowledge management, intellectual capital, and organizational learning. (Anthony Liew, 2007) It has often been pointed out that data, information, and knowledge are not the same, but very difficult to define them.

Below table shows the various definitions of Data, Information, and Knowledge from different authors.

Some definitions of data, information, and knowledge (Source: www.viktoria.se/~dixi/km/chap3.htm)

According to the above table we can clear that all of the definitions defined by various authors shared a common difference. They are defined with each other, i.e. information is defined in terms of data &/or knowledge, and knowledge is defined in terms of information.

Ex: According to the Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) “Information is a flow of messages” and Knowledge is created by “the very flow of information, anchored in the beliefs and commitment of its holder.”

By concerning above table I will discuss and analyze how DIK defined by these authors interrelated with each other in form of “terms” and conditions” they have used, in next section.

2.2 – Critical Analysis

To define the term Data different authors use different term but it seems to me the same. For one data is “Facts and messages” for others “A set of discrete facts”, “Not yet interpreted symbols” or “Raw facts”. Therefore in my viewpoint data can be defined as,

“Data is a set of Representation of plain facts”.

To define the term Information different authors used the terms such as “Data with meaning” “meaningful messages” and “Data with relevance” very frequently. Therefore information should have a meaning in order to others to know what it is. Therefore in my viewpoint Information can be defined as,

“Information is a message with meaning”

To define the term Knowledge different authors have use the conditions or terms such as “Why and how”, “Know how”, “Justified, true belief”, “Commitment and belief”, “ Truth and beliefs” and “judgments” some thing that connected with the human minds. Therefore in my viewpoint Knowledge can be defined as,

“Knowledge is information processed in the mind of individual”

This knowledge is personalized information and it can be gathered through experience or study. Knowledge can be viewed in different perspective. (As a state of mind, as an object and as a process)

According to the above table different authors have defined the term “knowledge” in different perspective.

· According to the (Davenport, 1997) he view the knowledge as a state of mind. In his perspective knowledge is “Valuable information from the human mind”

· According to the (Nonaka and Takenchi, 1995) defined the knowledge as a process, where 1^st flow of meaningful messages should be created then commitment and beliefs should be applied.

· According to the (Quigley and Debons, 1999) defined the knowledge as an Object. He defined the knowledge as a Text where those texts answer the question why or how.

Note: I will discuss these term in details with example from my organization point of view in section 2.3

2.2.1 – Hierarchical and Inter-Relationship between Data, Information and Knowledge

As I mentioned earlier definitions defined by various authors shared a common difference. They are defined with each other, i.e. information is defined in terms of data &/or knowledge, and knowledge is defined in terms of information. That is the General Acceptance of DIK. 1^st of all I would like to explain the General Acceptance of DIK. In general acceptance DIK have a hierarchical structure between them.

According to the above picture,

· Data become information as data is combined in to meaningful structure

· Information become knowledge when meaningful information is put in to context and when it can be used to make judgement with experience.

Also above picture explains how data and knowledge, as well as information and knowledge as interchangeable. According to the (Stewart, 2002) cited by Anthony Liew (2007). “One man’s knowledge can be another man’s data or one man’s knowledge can be another man’s information and vice versa, depending on context”

Note: I will discuss these inter-relationships between DIK in details with example in section 2.3

2.3 - Reflection from practice

Data, Information, Knowledge and their Inter-Relationships from my organizational perspective

According to the my organizational context which is a medical (Healthcare) centre, to carry out pre-employment medical screening for those seeking employment in the Middle East and the Gulf States. I would like to explain these terms as follows.

According to my definition “Data is a set of Representation of plain facts”. In my organizational context, data is most usefully described as structured records of transactions. Second, Data provides no judgment.

Ex: Adam, 5’ft 9inc, 120/80mmHg, 72kg, 26, Normal, “O” Positive, blue,

Information is a message with meaning, usually in the form or a document (General Examination Report, Laboratory Investigation Report). When we talk about a message it has a sender and a receiver. Unlike data, information has meaning. “Data becomes information when its creator adds meaning”. (Davenport and Prusak, 1998)

Ex: Patient called Adam, He is 5’ft 9inc in height, has 120/80mmHg Blood Pressure, is 72kg in weight, is 26 yrs old, vision (eyes) is Normal, has a Blood Group of “O” Positive and has a blue eyes. All these messages can be include in a one document. (General Examination Report, Laboratory Investigation Report)

Knowledge is information processed in the mind of individual. In other word "Knowledge is the state or fact of knowing; it is understanding gained through experience or study; the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered or learned" (Snyder and Wilson, 1998).

Ex: 01 By examine the Adam’s General Examination Report and the Laboratory Investigation Report; Medical Officer (Chief Doctor) can certify on the Medical Certification that Adam is either Fit/Unfit to work, based on their experiences.

Ex: 02 Number of patients cared for during year, Number of Fit and Unfit patient’s records for during year.

Now I would like to explain the inter relationship between these term data, information, and knowledge in the context of my organization.

It is often assumed that these term are arranged in a hierarchical structure starting with data, data the most plentiful type, at the bottom; information produced from data above it; knowledge produced from information.

• As I mentioned earlier data such as Adam, 5’ft 9inc, 120/80mmHg can be information when we add some context to it. (Ex: Patient called Adam, he is 5’ft 9inc in Height, he has 120/80mmHg Blood Pressure, etc.) And these informations can be usually represented in the form or a document (i.e.- General Examination Report, Laboratory Investigation Report). The improvement from data to information based on ‘know what and how’ procedure.
• Then the chief doctors can use these documents in order to come to a conclusion that is to certify the patient is either Fit/Unfit to work on the Medical Certification. Therefore these informations become knowledge to those chief doctors with their experience. Here ‘know why and how’ procedure applies.
• In order to certify the patient status (Fit/Unfit) doctor should have pre-knowledge with in that field.

· Finally this Medical Certification could be a data to the Foreign Embassies and just information to the patient. “One man’s knowledge can be another man’s data or information, depending on context” (Stewart, 2002) cited by Anthony Liew (2007).

2.4 - Reflections on group learning:

· Learning out come 01: What is data/ information/ knowledge and their inter-relationships.

By having our group discussion I have learned the differences between Data, Information, Knowledge and their inter relationship.

During our seminar we faced some difficulties in order to Differentiate these term and we found that there is no clear distinction between terms. But it is easy to separate the each term when we applied in to a real life context.

During the class, my group (group 01) argued that data, information and knowledge have a hierarchical structure or a pyramid view and those DIK are interrelated to each other according to the different situations.

Appropriate example given by my lecture is that a prescription of a pharmaceutical product. This prescription can be a data, information or knowledge for different people according to their observation.

Finally I have learned what is a knowledge exploration model and concept of each term.

(Observation, Integration, Conceptualization, evaluation and Derivation)

References:

· Davenport T.H. and Prusak L. 1998: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

· Snyder C. A. Wilson L. T. 1998; The Process of Knowledge Harvesting: The key to knowledge Management, proceedings of BIT 98 held at Manchester Metropolitan University, November 1998.

· Anthony L. 2007: Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from www.tlainc.com/articl134.htm

Definition of Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management is now one of the major driving forces of organizational change and wealth creation. In its simplest form Knowledge Management is about encouraging people to share knowledge and ideas to create value-adding products and services in order to enhance the organization’s competitiveness.

There are many definitions of Knowledge Management. Among them few definitions have been mentioned below.

Some definitions of knowledge management (Source: Templeton & Snyder 1997)

KM definition from my perspective

Knowledge Management is a systematic process of creating, organizing, disseminating, embedding knowledge and developing an organization to make the best use of its individual and collective knowledge with the goal of enhancing the organization’s competitiveness.

References:
Gary Templeton and Charles Snyder, Retrieved February 20, 2008, from:http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~aabecker/Freiburg/Final/ Templeton/ ontpaper. html

"A Critique of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory" – Reply to Prof. Mark Woodman’s comment.

Point 01- explanation on the word “digital” and how it helps to Knowledge Management

Nowadays global economy move to a more knowledge base one with advance in Digital Techonology and Telecommunication and this advancement in new technologies (networking, storage, and processor) has increased the amount of ‘digitalization of organizational knowledge’ at an unprecedented rate.

“Digitalization of organizational knowledge” comes into picture in the Nonaka SECI Model Theory. As I explain in my Blog knowledge creation is a spiraling process of interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge. The interactions between the explicit and tacit knowledge lead to the creation of new knowledge.

The foundation of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theory of organizational knowledge is the notion of ‘knowledge conversion’ and it has four modes of knowledge conversion.

Now I would like to discuss how some of these modes interrelated to digitalization concept.

As we know ‘Externalization’ is a process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit concepts. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi, externalization holds the key to knowledge creation, because it creates new, explicit concepts from tacit knowledge and this explicit knowledge can be in the form tangible (material) or intangible (non-material – digital) forms.

Best example for intangible form is a Blog. This support the externalization process by giving voice to everyone and providing a space to capture personal knowledge and distributed discussions across blogs, immediately documents their opinions, and annotates information.

Following are some of the best examples for digitalized methods for helping knowledge creation are,

Chat VoIP Mobile Technologies Wikis Email Video/Phone Conferencing


VoIP and phone/video-conferencing for example are powerful tools to trigger externalization via open participation, dialogue, and discussion.
Wikis are good examples of the collective intelligence at work. They provide an opportunity for social interaction and collaborative knowledge capturing.


Combination is the process of systematizing concepts into a knowledge system, and it integrates different bodies of explicit knowledge. Once knowledge is captured, it becomes explicit knowledge i.e. information that can be stored and accessed.

Following are some of the best examples for digitalized methods for the Combination process are,

Blogs and wikis build distributed community information stores with up-to-date, context-rich, and searchable learning assets. The captured information can then be transferred within a social context.

Pod/vodcasting is growing in popularity as a powerful tool to share audio and video recordings.

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is a successful technology that makes it easy to share resources across networks, as it brings content from different sources (e.g. new blog posts, podcasts) to a learner’s personal space.

Therefore the ‘Digitalization’ can be a one of the tool which facilitate knowledge creation, storage and transfer in the Knowledge Management.


Point 02- clarify my own viewpoint for some of the criticisms made by others.

“Doyle (1985) and Glisby and Holden (2003) argue that the model rests on Japanese management cultural practices, and is thus not transferable to other environment.”


I will strongly believe in this argument and I would like to convince this by adding more comments, based on the research carried out by the Geert Hofstede.

What is culture?

Culture can be briefly stated as “mental programs or software of the mind” (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005: 3).
Culture can be defined as “Culture consists of the unwritten rules of the social game. It is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of the people from others.” (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005: 4)


According to the research carried out by the Geert Hofstede for a large multinational corporation (IBM) by using their pool of data from fifty different countries around the world, He finds out employees in different countries exposes common problems, but with solutions differing from country to country, in the following areas:

a) Social inequality, including the relationship with authority
b) Ways of dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity
c) Concept of masculinity and femininity
d) The relationship between the individual and the group

After identifying these basic problems Geert Hofstede has categories the problems in to four dimensions. They have been named as,

a) Distance (from small to large)
b) Uncertainty Avoidance (from weak to strong)
c) femininity versus Masculinity
d) Collectivism versus Individualism

Based on these four dimensions of culture I will explain how the Japanese organizational culture differs from the cultures of other countries/regions. (Eg. Europe).

It is generally said that Japanese culture supports norms of collectivism and Western/European culture supports norms of independence, self-reliance and individual responsibility. As a result, it is frequently implied that, the process of knowledge creation in the Japanese organization are more collective; by contrast. Therefore this can be easily achieved trough the socialization process. But it cannot be done in Western/European cultural environment. (This part concern on Collectivism versus Individualism)

As we know in the Socialization process the tacit knowledge is exchanged through join activities – such as being together, spending time, living in the same environment – rather than through written or verbal instructions and this largely supported through direct interaction with people.

Therefore, In Japanese organization this can be done easily, because they have a collectively oriented society and encourage affective interpersonal relationships between leaders and subordinates or among the subordinates through informal communication. Not only that in Japanese organization leaders act as coordinators to achieve group goals through maintaining harmony among group members. It is a common practice in Japan that leaders take out their subordinates rather regularly for after-work drinking sessions, during which a wide range of ideas, and personal problems related to or not related to work are identified. Many Japanese companies use more informal channels of communication and off-hours drinking sessions, to achieve a free flow of information.

In this kind of environment trust between the subordinates are more dominant. Therefore exchange of ides or knowledge between subordinates easily can be done without reluctant. (This part concern on Power Distance)


But in Western/European cultural environment this is quite different from the Japanese. Since the Western/European countries have an individualists oriented society they are not social-minded (unlike the Japanese); and teamwork is almost unknown. Here interpersonal relationships between leaders and subordinates through formal communication and leaders attempt to maintain considerable distance in their relations with subordinates. And also in this cultural environment leaders attempt to achieve goals through encouraging competition among subordinates. Therefore this will create reluctant to express ideas and to share their knowledge explicitly within the team. Therefore there will be a lack of trust between the leaders and subordinates or among the subordinates. Since there is no teamwork and trust this leads to barriers for the socialization process.


In comparison with the Japanese organization, the Western/European companies seem to rely much more heavily on the formal channels of communication for the exchange of information. Many managers tend to keep much information to themselves, and they are generally reluctant to reveal any matters. Therefore Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Framework not practicable for the Western/European cultural organizations.


To conclude my argument, Nonaka’s SEKI Model Knowledge transfer effect by cultural context and culture is totally different from one country to another. Hence Japanese and the European cultural backgrounds are totally different from each other.

References:

• Juan Chamero, CEO Intag, December 20th 2003,Retrieved February 10, 2008, from: www.intag.org/downloads/new_paradigm_en.htm
• The Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede (2005) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York, McGraw-Hill.
• Edgar H. Schenin (1997) Organizational Culture And Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

A Critique of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory

An introduction to Nonaka’s Knowledge Creation Framework

In the field of knowledge in organizations, probably the most widely cited approach to knowledge creation is Nonaka’s SECI model (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). According to Professor Ikujiro Nonaka, knowledge creation is a spiraling process of interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge. The interactions between the explicit and tacit knowledge lead to the creation of new knowledge. The combination of the two categories makes it possible to conceptualize four conversion patterns.

Tacit vs Explicit K n o w l e d g e

" We can know more that we can tell " -Michael Polanyi (1966) and He classified human knowledge into two categories.

1. Tacit Knowledge

It is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to communicate of share with others. Subjective insights, intuitions and feelings fall into this category of knowledge. It is deeply rooted in and individuals’ actions and experience as well as in the ideals, values, or emotions he or she embraces. Personal quality which makes it hard to formalize and communicate. It ‘indwells’ in a comprehensive cognizance of the human mind and body. (Michael Polanyi, 1966)

2. Explicit Knowledge

Codified knowledge that can be transmitted in formal, systematic language. It is discrete or ‘digital’. It is captured in records of the past such as libraries, archives and databases and is assessed on a sequential basis. It can be expressed in words and numbers and shared in the form of data, scientific formulate, specifications, manuals and the like. This kind of knowledge can be readily transmitted between individuals formally and systematically. In the west, in general, this form of knowledge has been emphasized. (Michael Polanyi, 1966)

The four conversion patterns of knowledge are illustrated in diagram below:

	Tacit K	Tacit K
T	Socialization	Externalization	E
T	Internalization	Combination	E
	Explicit K	Explicit K

Nonaka's SECI Model

The foundation of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s theory of organizational knowledge is the notion of ‘knowledge conversion’— how tacit knowledge is ‘converted’ to explicit knowledge, and vice versa. As the authors argue, ‘our dynamic model of knowledge creation is attached to a critical assumption that human knowledge is created and expanded through social interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. We shall call this interaction ‘‘knowledge conversion’’ ’. (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

Nonaka and Takeuchi distinguish four modes of knowledge conversion: from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge ("socialization"); from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge ("externalization"); from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge ("combination"); and from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge ("internalization"). (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

1. socialization

This mode enables the conversion of tacit knowledge through interaction between individuals. One important point to note here is that an individual can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices work with their master and learn craftsmanship not through language but by observation, imitation and practice. In a business setting, on job training (OJT) uses the same principle. The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form of shared experience, it is extremely difficult for people to share each other’ thinking process.

The tacit knowledge is exchanged through join activities – such as being together, spending time, living in the same environment – rather than through written or verbal instructions. In practice, socialization involves capturing knowledge through physical proximity. The process of acquiring knowledge is largely supported through "direct interaction with people". (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

2. Externalization

Externalization requires the expression of tacit knowledge and its translation into comprehensible forms that can be understood by others. During the externalization stage of the knowledge-creation process, and individual commits to the group and thus becomes one with the group. The sum of the individuals' intentions and ideas combine and become integrated with the group's mental world.

3. combination

Combination involves the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex sets of explicit knowledge. In this stage, the key issues are communication and diffusion processes and the systemization of knowledge. Here, new knowledge generate in the externalization stage transcends the ground in analogues or digital signals.

4. Internalization

The internalization of newly created knowledge is the "conversion of explicit knowledge into the organization's tacit knowledge" (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) . This requires the individual to identify the knowledge relevant for one’s self within the organizational knowledge. That again requires finding one’s self in a larger entity. Learning by doing, training and exercises allow the individual to access the knowledge realm of the group and the entire organization.

Some Criticism of Nonaka's SECI Model Theory

As I mentioned earlier Nonaka’s SECI Model of organizational knowledge creation has recently been describe as a “ Highly Respected” theory within the Society. Although it is highly respected, this theory appears to have attracted some systematic criticisms. Before stepping in to my own criticism on this, I would like to share some criticism, which are expressed by some expertise within this field. (Extracted from the FLAWS IN THE “ENGINE” OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION by Stephen Gourlay and Andrew Nurse)

Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001), for example, show that each of the SECI modes is dependent on the presence of appropriate task characteristics and these characteristic unknown.

Doyle (1985) and Glisby and Holden (2003) argue that the model rests on Japanese management cultural practices, and is thus not transferable to other environment.

Engestrom’s (1999) discovery that problem finding is an important part of innovation missing from the SECI model,

Poell and van der Krogt (2003), treat the mode as forms of learning, and the type of work involved influences how workers learn. But Nonaka apparently assumes workers only learn within parameters set by managers. Their research points to the importance of self-organized learning, particularly in professional organizations.

Adler (1995) suggested that Nonaka’s discussion of externalization may not be generalizable, and pointed out that although the other modes had been previously studied, Nonaka and his colleagues neglected that research.

(Adler, 1995; Stacey, 2001; Tsoukas, 2003) Nonaka treats tacit and explicit knowledge as separable, other theorists regard tacit knowledge as always necessary for explicit knowledge to be understood.

Finally, recent research done by Bereiter (2002) has identified four important shortcomings in Nonaka’s approach. Those are as follows.

1. Echoing Stacey (2001), he argues that Nonaka’s theory cannot explain how minds produce (or fail to produce) ideas.
2. It overlooks the important question of understanding—in order to learn by doing, one has to know what to observe.
3. While the theory recognizes knowledge abstracted from context, it says little about how it can be managed.
4. The view that knowledge originates in individual minds prevents Nonaka from conceptualizing knowledge that arises from collective actions, for example, as a product of teamwork.

Overall, Bereiter (2002) argues that the theory is rooted in a folk epistemology that regards individual minds as full of unformed knowledge that must be projected into an external world, an approach that hinder any attempt to provide a theory of knowledge creation. As such, he suggests that Nonaka’s theory fails both as a theory and as a practical tool for business.

Now I would like to share my own viewpoint toward this subject matter. In 1st step in the Nonaka’s SECI model Nonaka proposed that knowledge conversion begins with socialization, the tacit acquisition of tacit knowledge by people who do not have it from people who do (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) . But in practical situation the knowledge that people have in an organization is so practical and it’s deeply rooted with their body and involved to a specific environment. Therefore it’s very difficult to express when people are asked to describe how they do what they do. They often find it hard to express it in words

Further more in some industries people are not willing to disclose their knowledge because it’s their trade secret of the business and /or lawful to the company. (Eg: Gem Merchant).

Another important drawback in the SECI model is lack of cultural issues. Professor Ikujiro Nonaka hasn’t adequately discussed how knowledge conversion can be done in a culturaly diversified team or organization. In our society there are very few teams/organization that have homogeneity. Today most of the organizations are comprised of people from different backgrounds and experience according to his/her education, occupation/profession.

Now I would like to focus this research towards my organization (J Sainsbury’s).

In Socialization process the knowledge is acquired by "direct interaction with people" (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) . Therefore in a culturaly diversified organization (e.g. J Sainsbury’s) it should be problematic because of the followings.

• Individuals in multinational organizations come with different backgrounds. They are from with different countries speaking different native languages and speaking in ascent which unique to there region. Language is a tool for communication. The challenges to Socialization process is how the listener interprets or understands these information (knowledge) when they doesn’t know the language of the speaker or the intention of his/her.

Further, even though if both people are speaking a common language, such as English in a team, but there are people in different educational levels, age, professions and experience and how they communicate is differing from others. Technical people use to communicate with their technical term and jargons, other management people use their management term, etc. Therefore most communication breakdown between people that leads to lack of awareness and misunderstanding of knowledge.

• Another most challenging problem to Socialization Process is lack of trust between the staff members, due to lack of communication, different cultural backgrounds and different social class levels. Firstly, in this kind of situation, people are much less willing to share their knowledge and ideas. Secondly, it is more difficult to detect problems if people’s work is isolated.

Therefore conversion of tacit knowledge through interaction between individuals can be problematic in culturaly-diversified organization.

References:

(1) Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University, Retrieved January 31, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books

(2) Stephen Gourlay and Andrew Nurse, February 01,2008, from Myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sngourlay/PDFs/Chap%2013%20GourlayNurse.pdf

(3) The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1966.