SUMMARY OF: A REVIEW OF CULTURE IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH: TOWARD A THEORY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CULTURE CONFLICT

Dorothy E. Leidner and Timothy Kayworthy (2006). MIS Quarterly Vol 30 No.2 pp. 357-399

The goal of this paper is to:

• Examine the impact of national, organizational, and subunit culture to IT
• Examine how IT impacts culture within a group by examining implications and causes on three types of conflicts that happens when organization implements IT.
  

IMPACT OF CULTURE TO IT

The paper review how different culture taxonomies impacts IT. Some of those taxonomies are:

Taxonomy 1. Uncertainty Avoidance : The degree to which members of a society feel comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity.

The author findings on this aspect of culture:

Cultures low in uncertainty avoidance had lower perception of project risk than cultures high in uncertainty avoidance.

Taxonomy 2. Power Distance: The extend to which members of a society accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed equally.

The author findings on this aspect of culture:
Successful adoption of IT is more likely to occur in a low power-distance cultures.

Taxonomy 3. Individualism vs. Collectivist: The preference for a social framework where individuals take care of themselves (individualism) as opposed to be collectivism where individuals expect a group to take care of them in exchange for their loyalty.

The author findings on this aspect of culture:
Groups with high power distance and collectivist using Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) achieved a greater degree of reduction in harmful status influence effects than group with low power distance and individualist.

Taxonomy 4. Solidarity and Sociability: The degree to which an organization's members pursue shared objectives quickly and effectively regardless of personal ties (solidarity). The tendency toward sincere friendliness among members of a community (sociability).

The author findings on this aspect of culture: organization low in sociability and high solidarity has a higher IT adoption.

IMPACT OF IT TO CULTURE

The author of the paper examines the impacts that IT implementation brings to an organizations by examining three types of conflicts:

Conflict 1. System Conflict
System conflict emerges when the values implicit in a specific IT contradicts the values held by the group members using, or expected to use, the system.

The author observe the following causes and implications on system conflict:

1. The greater the cultural distance between the group responsible for championing the IT and the group adopting the IT, the greater the system conflict experienced by the group adopting the IT.
2. The greater the breadth of IT implementation across groups, the greater the system conflict by the organization.
3. The greater the system conflict experienced by a group, the less likely the group is to be a forerunner in the adoption of the system.
4. The greater the system conflict experienced by a group, the greater the modification of use to support the group’s values .

Conflict 2. Contribution Conflict

Contribution Conflict is defined as the contradiction between group member values and the group's IT values. Contribution conflicts does not involve the use of a specific IT, but more to the IT management and strategy rather than IT development, adoption, use and outcome.

The author observe the following cause and implications with contribution conflict:

1. The lower the contribution conflict by the most powerful actors within a group, the lower the contribution conflict experienced by the group.
2. The lower the contribution conflict in a group to which another group aspires, the lower the contribution conflict in the aspiring group.
3. The greater the contribution conflict experienced by a group, the less strategic a role that IT will play in that group.
4. The greater the contribution conflict experienced by a group, the less likely the innovation uses of IT by the group.
   

Conflict 3. Vision Conflict

Vision conflict is defined as contradiction between values embedded in a system and a group's IT values. It is important to understand the system values are values that are embedded in the IT system by the IT champion. The group's IT value refers to the values of the user who is using the IT system.

The authors observe the following cause and implications from vision conflict:

1. The greater the difference in the IT values between the champion group and the user group the greater the vision conflict experience by the user group.
2. The lesser the involvement of the most powerful within a user group in development, the greater the vision conflict experienced by the user group.
3. The higher the vision conflict a group has with respect to a system, the lower the adoption rate of the system by the group.
4. The greater the vision conflict by a group the greater the potential change to the group's IT values.

The author also observe that managers can reduce all forms of conflict by promoting shared IT values. The emergence and resolution of the three types of conflict will, over time, result in cultural change of the organization.

Week 2 presentation

Alavi and Leibner presentation

KM and KMS: conceptual foundations

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

Type: Review to survey, conceptualise and synthesize prior research and set directions for future research.

Audience: Academic.

Focus: To synthesize work from multiple disciplines, to illuminate concepts of knowledge and knowledge taxonomies, on which to build km systems.

Summary:

1.The absence of a definitive definition of knowledge has not precluded the development of knowledge based theory of firm nor knowledge management. However, assumptions about knowledge inform identification of information needs, understanding of information use and shape kms design.

2.The authors discuss different perspectives on knowledge: knowledge contrasted with data and information, knowledge as a state of mind, as an object, as a process, as a condition of having access to knowledge, as capability. The link between knowledge perspectives and theory are often weak: while knowledge as a state of mind is clearly constructivist knowledge as capability does not appear to rely on theory but rather the Matrix. Also the perspective of knowledge in contrast to data and information “knowledge is thus the result of cognitive processing triggered by the inflow of new stimuli” (109) is not really different from knowledge as a state of mind “understanding gained through experience or study”, and both derive from the classic definition of information as that which makes a difference: K[S]+ΔI = K[S+ΔS].

3. The authors discuss different taxonomies / classifications of knowledge: tacit – explicit; individual – social; know-about – know-how – know-why – know-when – know-with; pragamatic. These taxonomies are all from management literature; knowledge taxonomies from philosophy and LIS are not included.

4.The authors discuss 4 basic KM processes, and role of IT, although these are all from the perspective as knowledge as a process:

(a) Creation / construction, following Nonaka's 4 modes:

i. socialisation: X's tacit knowledge becomes Y's tacit knowledge,

in originating ba / information grounds (face to face, proximity).

ii. externalisation: X's tacit knowledge becomes X's explicit

knowledge, in interacting ba (through dialogue and

collaboration).

iii. internalisation: X and Y's explicit knowledge becomes X's tacit

knowledge, in exercising ba (through practice and use).

iv. combination: (X)'s explicit knowledge ∪ (Y)'s explicit knowledge

becomes new (X∪Y)'s explicit knowledge. May be in cyber ba.

(b) Knowledge storage / retrieval, aka organisational memory. The

authors assume kms is historicist and predictive, which is unlikely

in uncertain and complex organisations.

(c) Knowledge transfer, requiring evaluation of the elements in

Shannon's mathematical theory of communication.

(d) Knowledge application, requiring different mechanisms for

different levels of uncertainty and complexity.

The IT tools identified for the different processes are not always in the right area, for example, a directory which is a finding aid for retrieval is under knowledge transfer.

5.Role of IT given prominence and almost defined as a necessary antecedent to a kms, although in my opinion it is only a tool.

KM and KMS: conceptual foundations

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

This is somewhat longer than required, but it is very hard to summarise 20 pages into 200 words. I also think that the subject matter is important as it provides the foundations for KM and KMS, which, when internalized and made tacit knowledge, enable the development of effective and efficient tools and procedures to match the information need.

Type: Review to survey, conceptualise and synthesize prior research and set directions for future research.

Audience: Academic.

Focus: To synthesize work from multiple disciplines, to illuminate concepts of knowledge and knowledge taxonomies, on which to build km systems.

Summary:

1. An absence of a definitive definition of knowledge did not preclude development of knowledge based theory of firm nor knowledge management. However, assumptions of knowledge shape kms design.

2. There are many different knowledge perspectives [definitions / concepts / theoretical foundations, although is some cases the link between knowledge perspectives and theory is weak]:

(a) Knowledge in contrast to data and information: “Knowledge is thus the result of cognitive processing triggered by the inflow of new stimuli” (109) [ie, K[S]+ΔI = K[S+ΔS]. This is a classic definition of information: that which makes a difference].

(b) Knowledge as a state of mind: understanding gained through experience or study [although this appears to be the same as (a). May equate with constructivism / noumenology].

(c) Knowledge is an object: [paper assumes knowledge management is within resource based theory of firm, thus this definition may place knowledge as a resource of a firm, possibly with no special attributes. May equate with LIS information. May equate with realism / phenomenology].

(d) Knowledge as a process: [appears to be “know how” or “ken”. Follows Nonaka's terminology although not attributed].

(e) Knowledge as a condition of having access to information: knowledge is an object, key is to be able to access [as in (c) but with more emphasis on LIS organisation of information tools].

(f) Knowledge as a capability: [appears to be ability to use not-yet accessed information for benefit of firm. May equate with just-in-time km or the Matrix].

3. There are many different taxonomies / classifications of knowledge:

(a) Tacit – explicit.

(b) Individual – social.

(c) Know-about – know-how – know-why – know-when – know-with.

(d) Pragamatic [KPMG – seems to follow IC taxonomy].

(e) [other taxonomies exist].

4. Four basic KM processes, and role of IT (grounded in sociology of knowledge, firm is a social collective and knowledge system; organisational knowledge is social and cognitive, comprising individual and collective processes):

(a) Creation / construction.

i. Follows Nonaka's 4 modes:

A. socialisation: X's tacit knowledge becomes Y's tacit knowledge, in originating ba / information grounds (face to face, proximity).

B. Externalisation: X's tacit knowledge becomes X's explicit knowledge, in interacting ba (through dialogue and collaboration).

C. Internalisation: X and Y's explicit knowledge becomes X's tacit knowledge, in exercising ba (through practice and use).

D. Combination: (X)'s explicit knowledge ∪ (Y)'s explicit knowledge becomes new (X∪Y)'s explicit knowledge. May be in cyber ba.

ii. Developments in IT affect the ba / information grounds.

(b) Knowledge storage / retrieval.

i. Aka organisational memory [but defines organisational memory as individual's memory plus culture, ecology, structure, and defines individual's memory as knowledge perspective (b), which immediately limits KM strategies to one theoretical foundation][places organisational memory within historicist theory as predictive].

ii. Developments in IT affect information retrieval and memory / repositories.

(c) Knowledge transfer.

i. Gupta and Govindarajan identified 5 elements to knowledge transfer (following Shannon):

A. perceived value of information / message.

B. motivational disposition of source.

C. quality of channel (most researched element).

D. motivational disposition of receiver (partially knowledge perspective (e)).

E. absorptive capacity of receiver (knowledge perspective (f)).

ii. Developments in IT affect quality of channel, eg social networking links. [authors talk of knowledge maps / yellow pages, but I would put that in retrieval as a “finding aid”]

(d) Knowledge application.

i. Grant identified 3 mechanisms for integration of knowledge to create organisational capability:

A. Directives.

B. Routines.

C. Self-contained task teams (where high uncertainty / complexity).

ii. Developments in IT embed mechanisms through systems.

Critique:

1. While described as multi-disciplinary (108) all references are from management: IT, strategic management and organisational theory (109). There are no references to the work on knowledge in philosophy (Popper) or LIS (Dervin, Brookes).

Summary and review of “Some Principles of Knowledge Management” by Thomas H. Davenport (Lecture 3 preparation)

Writing in 1998, the author of this article acknowledges that Knowledge Management in business was still at an early stage, and organizations would need high-level guiding principles for implementing Knowledge Management which detailed approaches and plans can be based on.

The author takes a systematic view towards the implementation of Knowledge Management in organizations and reflectively outlines the 10 most important Knowledge Management principles according to his experiences in this field. The 10 principles can be described as –

Financial commitment – organizations should invest on Knowledge Management, as knowledge generates revenues and the lack of Knowledge Management may cost an organization more.

People and technology – Knowledge Management requires both people and technology. People need to interpret knowledge in certain context and combine it with other information whistle technology can capture, transform and distribute knowledge.

Organizational politics – Knowledge is often associated with power within an organization and would have certain political implications. Managers should work together towards better utilization of Knowledge across the organization.

Knowledge managers – clear responsibility needs to be established within the organization and Knowledge Managers need to be committed to the Knowledge Management processes and activities.

Knowledge mapping – Mapping organizational knowledge, rather than creating a hierarchical model or architecture for knowledge, would lead to better access and utilization of knowledge.

Knowledge sharing – Organizations should provide incentives for staff members to share knowledge, such as performance evaluations, compensations and rewards.

Process improvement – Organizations should continuously refine Knowledge Management process, and carefully choose between top-down and bottom-up approaches to improve the process.

Attention and engagement – both consumers and employees should be actively involved with Knowledge Management; they should interact and receive knowledge from each other as well as pay attention to tacit knowledge.

Ongoing task – Knowledge Management should be ongoing within organizations as change in Knowledge environment can be rapid.

Knowledge contract – organizations should consider the legal aspects of Knowledge Management, especially the rights to the knowledge of employees.

Once putting forward the above 10 principles of Knowledge Management, the author also reviewed and summarized how Knowledge Management was implemented across organization at HP, which the author described as a knowledge-orientated company and was committed to Knowledge Management.

This article and the Knowledge Management principles it proposes are mainly based on author’s reflection as he looks at his experiences of working in Knowledge Management areas at different organizations. This article offered very little academic background of the Knowledge Management topic but the principles outlined in this article are practical and should be considered and adopted by organizations which are keen to implement Knowledge Management.