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.