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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment