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).