I. Introduction.................................................................................................................2 Section I.1 Self Organization and Complexity Theory ...........................................3 Section I.

2 The ontology of learning in complex adaptive systems...........................4 Section I.3 Practice Implications................................................................................4 Section I.4 Assumptions of New Knowledge Managament.......................................6 Section I.5 Four dimensions of NKM........................................................................6 1. Embryology of knowledge.................................................................................6 2. Politics of knowledge.........................................................................................7 3. Intellectual diversity...........................................................................................7 4. Connectedness....................................................................................................7 Section I.6 How to measure innovation.....................................................................8 (a) About thought leadership..................................................................................8 Section I.7 Sustainable Innovation.............................................................................9 Section I.8 Knowledge processing, a self-organizing social process.........................9 Section I.10 POLICIES: ..........................................................................................10 II. My Research............................................................................................................12 Section I.11 How to conduct research and measure KM policy effectiveness in Philips:......................................................................................................................12 Section I.12 Methodology: the types of theoretical models.....................................12 Section I.13 Role of culture: ...................................................................................13 III. Additional literature that goes along or adds to the organic knowledge management theory......................................................................................................13 Section I.14 Knowledge sharing as a human behaviour that must be examined in the context of human performance...........................................................................13 Section I.15 Culture and knowledge sharing study..................................................13 Section I.16 Linking the idea of social capital.........................................................14 IV. Getting Real about Knowledge Networks..............................................................15 Section I.17 The philosophy: Nishida’s and Cartesian world..................................15 Section I.18 Ba: Organic ground for knowledge creation........................................15 V. Organizational Learning and organizational knowledge.........................................15 Section I.19 Theories of knowledge.........................................................................15 (a) Cognitive-possession perspective...................................................................15 (b) Positivist view.................................................................................................15 (c) The connectionist approach............................................................................16 (d) Nonaka (1994): dynamic knowledge creation process...................................16 (e) Social approach...............................................................................................16 (f) Social constructionist theory...........................................................................16 Section I.20 Theories of learning.............................................................................16 (a) Positivist view.................................................................................................16 (b) Social-process perspective..............................................................................16 (c) Learning as a cultural process.........................................................................16 (d) Learning as social construction......................................................................16 Section I.21 Theories of the firm..............................................................................17 (a) Connectionist .................................................................................................17 (b) Spender (1996): dynamic theory of a company..............................................17 (c) Social constructionist theory...........................................................................17

1

New Knowledge Management Mark W. McElroy
Butterworth-Heinemann of Elsevier Science, Knowledge Management Consortium International, 2003. KM is about improving ways in which people work together to create and share knowledge. I. Introduction 1. There are two generations of knowledge management. The older generation concerned the information technology loaded processes, such as and information collection, storage and distribution, and was focused more on old knowledge diffusion rather than new knowledge generation. “Unfortunately, this interpretation of KM has done nothing but confuse the business world for years now, since what’s really going on in the scenario above is just information integration (i.e. information or knowledge capture, deployment and retrieval) and not knowledge management, much less knowledge processing. As discussed, earlier knowledge differs from information by virtue of the strength contained in the claims about claims (metaclaims).” Pp.12 => the power relations article + Plato “First-generation KM, then, can be seen as a management discipline that focuses on knowledge operations, or knowledge deployment and use. It fails to address how knowledge is produced.”pp.44 2. “It is also not only true that each knowledge domain in a system has its own KLC, but also its own independent outcomes. In other words, what’s true for me (my validated knowledge claims) may not be true for you, because we each have our own separate KLCs and my validation criteria may differ from yours” pp.18 (odniesienie do artykułu o Power is Knowledge – codes to desicpher knowledge)

2

3. Peter Senge 1995 The Fifth Discipline: ” the only sustainable advantage in business: the ability to learn faster than your competitors. OL, therefore, focuses on how to create and forste effective knowledge processing environments in human social systems.”pp.19 4. Definition of Open Enterprise: “knowledge processing environments might be more or less open to including the broader population of a firm when it comes to knowledge claim formulation, evaluation, and adoption by management. The more restrictive management is in the conduct of its knowledge processing affairs, the more “closed” the firm would be.” Pp.20 Section I.1Self Organization and Complexity Theory 1. CAS theory holds that living systems (i.e. organizations made up of living, independent agents, such as people) self-organize and continuously fir themselves, individually and collectively, to ever-changing conditions in their environment. Pp.27 (R.D.Stacey Complexity and Creativity in Organizations) 2. Practitioners of second generation KM believe that people in organizations tend to self-organize around the production, diffusion, and use of knowledge, (and the KLC is the pattern of organizational behaviour that follows). Pp.28 3. “Complex adaptive systems are driven by three control parameters: the rate of information flow through the system, the richness of connectivity between agents in the system, and the level of diversity within and between the schemas [i.e., knowledge bases] of the agents.” (Stacey, 1996, pp.99) 4. “According to the adaptive systems camp, human social systems survive by continuously adjusting, or fitting, themselves to their environments; and they do this by engaging in real-time, non-stop learning.” Pp.148 See how cognition happens in living systems

3

Section I.2The ontology of learning in complex adaptive systems 1. “Complexity theory – or, to be more precise, the science of complexity – is the study of emergent order in what are otherwise very disorderly systems. Spirals in whirlpools, funnels in tornadoes, flocks of birds, schools of fish – these are all examples of orderly behaviour in systems that are neither centrally planned nor centrally controlled.” 2. […] Complexity studies indicate that the most creative phase of a systes, that is the point at which emergent behaviours inexplicably arise, lies somewhere between order and chaos. Stuart Kauffman points out that complex systems produce their most inventive displays in the region of behaviour he calls “the edge of chaos”. Systems operating in the vicinity of the edge exhibit wild bursts of creativity and produce new and novel behaviours at the level of the whole system. 3. […] In a sense, complex systems innovate by producing spontaneous, systemic bouts of novelty out of which new patterns of behaviour emerge. Patterns that enhance the system’s ability to adapt successfully to its environment are stabilized and repeated; those that do not are rejected in favour of radically new ones, almost as if a cosmic game of trial-and-error were being played. Complexity, therefore, is in part the study of pervasive innovation in the universe. “ pp.37 4. Definition of learning: Learning in its purest form is a voluntary, self-directed act that follows from intrinsic motivation and is intended to solve a problem. Pp.151 Section I.3Practice Implications 1. Double-loop learning: “people not only reference rules but constructively challenge them.” pp.70 see Chris Agryris 2. Why evolution is a must: “The extent to which an organism engages in healthy rule-making and learning will, to a large degree, determine its outcomes in life. An agent that rarely tests its rules will tend to perform more poorly in practice than

4

one that constantly challenges, upgrades, and refreshes them. Agents include organizations. A business that rarely revises its approach to the marketplace or its operating routines will tend to ossify and atrophy. On the other hand, companies that engage in healthy levels of rule-making and revision are inherently more capable of adjusting to changes in their environment. Indeed, organizational agility depends, to a large extent, on just how well an organization’s learning system works. => see the article on autopoiesis and the biological nature of knowledge That, then, is the principal aim of second-generation KM – to enhance an organization’s ability to engage in constructive levels of double-loop learning and, therefore, its capacity to adapt. In a sense, what we’re talking about here is double-loop KM, an OL practitioner’s method for helping organizations, not just individuals, learn. “Pp.71 3. Measuring KM: “Measuring return on investment from KM and OL initiatives, then, should occur in two ways: 1) by tracking the evolution of rules held in knowledge containers, and 2) by measuring related changes in the performance of the organization (i.e., in correlated business outcomes). […] First, is the impact of investments on the knowledge processing capacity of a firm, and second, is the downstream impact of enhancements in knowledge processing on business performance.” Pp.80 4. “Strategy, itself, is a product of knowledge production”. Knowledge management strategy should transcend business strategy, and KM interventions and methodologies should be crafted accordingly. Pp.87 5. “Innovation and organizational learning are largely synonymous terms” (see Schon and Agryris) “The output of organizational inquiry may take the form of a change in thinking and acting that yields a change in the design of

5

organizational practices” (C.Agryris, D.A.Schon, Organizational Learning II, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1996, pp.12) Each occurrence of organizational learning can, in turn, be regarded as an innovation. The means by which new knowledge is produced and integrated into widespread organizational practice is what we mean by the term “innovation”. Section I.4Assumptions of New Knowledge Managament “Knowledge production in organizations is an emergent social process. Human social systems, by their intrinsic nature, give rise to collective knowledge-making by their members as a byproduct of their individual learning and interpersonal interactions. Pp.100 […] In other words, no manipulation or management is required to get people to innovate in organizations; human social systems are already endowed with predispositions to do so. You don’t manage innovation, you either get out of its way or you engage it on its own terms, not yours.” Pp.101 See Thomas Kuhn that observed evolutions in science Section I.5Four dimensions of NKM

1. Embryology of knowledge
1. Creativity is a group process: “Ralph Stacey says, <<This means we cannot view creativity purely as an attribute of an individual. An individual is creative only if he or she is a member of groups that are capable of assisting in the containment of anxiety, although the degree to which individuals rely on groups for this purpose varies enormously.>>[…]<<Ultimately, creativity, and thus innovation, lie in interaction within a group>>”. (Stacey, 1996, pp.139)

6

“The embryology of knowledge refers to the extent to which individuals in an organization are free to pursue their own learning agendas, and the degree to which they are further free to selforganize into knowledge-making communities of interest or practice” pp.137

2. Politics of knowledge
“The politics of knowledge making, diffusion, and use in an organization can have a dramatic impact on the overall rate of business innovation, and the quality of the ideas produced.” Pp.137

3. Intellectual diversity
“The degree to which a business supports a plurality of ideas, even dissident ones, will also have a material impact on its overall performance in innovation. Firms that seek diversity in ethos tend to be more innovative than those that don’t. “ pp.137 Ethographies: Diversities of values, worldviews, and ethos See CAS theory for more evidence: “Complex adaptive systems are driven by three control parameters: the rate of information flow through the system, the richness of connectivity between agents in the system, and the level of diversity within and between the schemas [i.e., knowledge bases] of the agents.” (Stacey, 1996, pp.99)

4. Connectedness
The density of communications networks are also important to business innovation. The degree to which a culture values rich communications and connectivity between individuals and groups will, therefore, materially affect the rate and quality of its innovation. Pp.137 1. “The degree to which a culture enables and supports effective communications and connectivity between individuals and

7

groups will materially affect the rate and quality of its innovation.” Pp.108 Section I.6How to measure innovation In R&D: records on research reports or patents, In HR: personnel programs In marketing: new ad campaigns In sales: new contract offerings 1. Measuring the quality of innovation: 2. incremental revenue gained, or the cost saved 3. Trace the evolution of new knowledge, in retrospect, to the process that created it, and to grant a higher value, or quality, to innovations that were subjected to, and survived, thoughtful innovation. 4. Focus on the extent to which a knowledge processing system has allowed its hosts to solve their problems (pp.111) See more about how to measure IC

(a)About thought leadership
5. In complex adaptive systems all learning is bottom-up. There are leaders in such systems, but they derive their authority from the fact that they are the “attractor basins” (i.e., surrogate focal points) of self-organized knowledge processing. As soon as their knowledge claims no longer represent the emergent result of the system’s knowledge processing interactions, their authority withers. Pp.115 (see JH Holland, Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity, 1995) 6. “knowledge managers are knowledge policy and program managers” pp.119 7. We need a prescriptive model to analyze KM policies: “to indicate how conditions might be established within which

8

spontaneous self-organization might occur to produce emergent outcomes” pp.119 Section I.7Sustainable Innovation “By synchronizing innovation-related policies and programs with intrinsically-held patterns of self-organized knowledge-making behaviour in human social systems (i.e., the “knowledge drive”), businesses can realize the incomparable advantage of achieving both sustainable innovation and sustainable outcomes in commerce.” Pp.131 (see JH Clippinger, III Editor, The Biology of Business, San Fransisco: Josey-Bass Publishers, 1999). Cook and Brown contend that innovation is the result of a generative dance between knowledge and knowing: S.D.Cook, J.S.Brown, Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing, Organization Science 10(4) (July-August 1999), 381-400. Definition: “The process by which new knowledge is formulated by individuals, validated by communities, and embraced into practice by organizations is what we call innovation” – pp.134 Section I.8Knowledge processing, a self-organizing social process Independent individual learning => Group/community formation & learning => Organizational knowledge adoption => Knowledge integration E.Brauner and A.Becker, Beyond Knowledge sharing: The Management of Transactive Knowledge Systems, Knowledge and Process Management 13 (1) (2006), 62-71. : propose knowledge management as an instrument of organizational learning. Social process is stressed. Existence and influence of learning drive as a basis for the propagation of knowledge and adaptive behaviour in living systems. Pp.153

9

Section I.9 Section I.10POLICIES: PP.157 “Policies should be permissive in intent, but not prescriptive” pp.182 “[…] the active management not of innovation per se, but of the policies that surround its effective practice in a firm.” Pp.183 Knowledge processing behaviours Independent individual learning (embryology and ethodiversity policies) • Supporting policies • Support self-directed, selfmanaged learning programs for all employees Recruit, hire, and retain workers with diverse values and worldviews • Group or community formation and learning (politics policies) • Facilitate omnidirectional communications Embrace policies and programs that enable and support self-organized communities of knowledge • Formalize the inclusion of community-made knowledge in the politics of organizational knowledgemaking • Organizational knowledge adoption (politics policies) • Facilitate omnidirectional communications Enforce policies of transparency and openness in management deliberations and

10

knowledge making • Knowledge integration (connectedness policies) • • Facilitate omnidirectional communications Enforce aggressive knowledge sharing Facilitate omnidirectional communications See L.Edvinsson, M.S.Malone, Intellectual Capital, 1997 J.Nahapiet, S.Goshal, Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage, 1996 Policies can concern either of the two aspects of a living system: 1. Structural dimension policies    Ethodiversity Connectedness Community formation Individual learning Group learning Knowledge production Knowledge sharing Knowledge entitlement – patents, trademarks, copyrights Industry example: at 3M, there is the 15% rule, according to which employees can spend up to 15% of their time engaged in selfdetermined, self-managed, independent individual learning. It is seen as a major factor in what accounts for that company’s industry-leading levels of innovation. Pp.162 Social capital: social capital points to the value of relationships between people in firms, and between firms and other firms. Trust, reciprocity, shared values, networking, and norms are all things that 11

2. Operational dimension     

speed the transfer of information and the development of new knowledge. (see section 3.03) A firm has a natural ability to self-organize around innovation on an enterprise-wide basis => source of competitive advantage.

II. My Research Section I.11How to conduct research and measure KM policy effectiveness in Philips: 1) three areas of investigation a) organization: the existence of learning communities, the support of flexible communication, dynamics in the organization, rigidity of job definition, ethodiversity in hiring b) specific programs for the support and development of individual and group learning: talent development, culture of accepting mistakes, open innovation, knowledge sharing or ownership? c) ICT support and usage d) KPIs: no of innovations coming from a given department and the money value generated by them. All knowledge declines in value over time, therefore the returns on investment in policies supporting new knowledge are higher than investments in policies aimed at the re-use of retrospective knowledge. e) Analyze by social network analysis (see Lee)

Section I.12Methodology: the types of theoretical models J.L.Casti, Would-Be Worlds: How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science, John Wiley&Sons, Inc., New York, 1997. The Garden metaphor: is innovation a machine or a garden?

12

Section I.13Role of culture: “Learning policies are expressions of culture in the sense that they reflect the principles, beliefs, norms, values, and so on held by a collective population of people on how learning should happen and what its importance is to the organization. […]Policy is the voice of culture.” Pp.207.

III. Additional literature that goes along or adds to the organic knowledge management theory Section I.14Knowledge sharing as a human behaviour that must be examined in the context of human performance Human performance is influenced by many activities: • • • Business context: business goals, business strategy, communication of strategy Organizational context: policies and programs supporting KM; knowledge sponsors and integrators Additionally, there are organizational performance indicators (structure and roles, processes, culture and physical environment), and individual performance indicators (direction, measurement, means, ability, motivation) W.Ives, B.Torrey, C.Gordon, Knowledge Sharing is Human Behavior, in: Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works D.Morey, M.Maybury and B.Thuraisingham, eds, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2003.

Section I.15Culture and knowledge sharing study Establishing a KnS proficiency can help to jump start and build a KnS culture. Liebowitz and Chen define a KnS proficiency as “an attribute that allows the creation of knowledge to take place through an

13

exchange of ideas, expressed either verbally or in some codified way”. The best practice report examined culture on three levels: 1. company’s espoused philosophy, values, structures, and systems 2. behaviour of people’s peers and managers 3. deeper core company values As a result, factors influencing or enabling KnS were identified: • • • • • • link between knowledge sharing and business strategy fit with overall culture of the organization fit with daily work role of leaders and managers role of human networks institutionalization of learning disciplines

American Productivity and Quality Center. 1999. Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture. Consortium Benchmarking Study – Best-Practice Report

Section I.16Linking the idea of social capital • Social networks that create opportunities • Social capital has three dimensions: structural (network ties); cognitive (shared codes and languages); and relational (mutual trust and norms). • The conclusion was that companies should devote a lot of time and energy into managing employee relationships because of the impact they can have on the resulting KnS behaviour. M.Huysman and D.de Wit, Practices of Managing Knowledge Sharing: Towards a Second Wave of Knowledge Management, Knowledge and Process Management 11 (1) (2004), 81-92.

14

Additionally: M.Stankosky, ed., Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in University Research, Butterworth – Heinemann, 2005. IV. Getting Real about Knowledge Networks A.Beck, G.von Krogh, A.Seufert, E.Enkel Palgrave Macmillan, 2006 Section I.17The philosophy: Nishida’s and Cartesian world Interacting ba is the lace where tacit knowledge is made explicit, thus it represents the externalization process. Dialogue is key for such conversations; and the extensive use of metaphors is one of the conversion skills required. The importance of sensitivity for meaning and the will to make tacit knowledge explicit is recognized at companies like Honda or 3M. Section I.18Ba: Organic ground for knowledge creation The organic concentration of knowledge assets in ba involves not a consumption process of resources, but an ecological process with a cyclical cultivation of resources. However, knowledge creation and application represent ecology, not economy, and ba is the stage for this resource cycle. V. Organizational Learning and organizational knowledge R.Chiva and J.Alegre, Management Learning, SAGE Publications, 2005, Vol.36 (1): 49-68. Section I.19Theories of knowledge

(a) Cognitive-possession perspective
The view of knowledge as perceptive and as a commodity has its origns in cognitive science, particularly in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence (system theory, computer science, psychology and neurology.

(b) Positivist view
Knowledge is considered as a collection of representation of the world, made up of a number of objects and events. Knowledge is the result of a systematic analysis of our sensory experience of a knowable external reality. Knowledge is universal.

15

The objective of a cognitive system is to generate the most accurate representation of this world. Knowledge exists prior to and independently from the knowing subject, who creates no knowledge in the act of appropriation.

(c) The connectionist approach
Knowledge is generated through networks and relationships, and not by individuals. Knowledge is found in the connections that exist between the expert and the organization. It is shared by all members of the organization.

(d) Nonaka (1994): dynamic knowledge creation process
Dynamic aspects of the organizational knowledge creation process: organizational knowledge is created through continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. Interaction between individuals plays a fundamental role in the development of new ideas. Org. Knowledge is created by individuals, organizations play a key role in articulating and expanding this knowledge.

(e) Social approach
Knowledge is something people create, in other words, it’s a social process. (Spender, 1996). Knowledge is neither universal nor abstract.

(f) Social constructionist theory
Von Krogh (1994): autopoiesis, reality based on social interaction and discursive behaviour, which give rise to social constructions. Knowledge as a constructing or creating act, and not as a representation. Section I.20Theories of learning

(a) Positivist view
Learning is the improvement of the accuracy of representation of the world, which is a given entity.

(b) Social-process perspective
Learning is not conceived as a way of knowing the world, but as a way of being the world (Gherardi, 1999). Learning is development of situated identities based on participation in a community of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) say that learning is in social relationships.

(c) Learning as a cultural process
(Cook and Yanow, 1996): learning is inherent in culture, and those who introduce knowledge into culture and its artefacts seem to be in a good position to obtain inferences on organizational learning.

(d) Learning as social construction
Organizational learning involves the joint construction of new collective meanings, through dialogue, equality in participation, tolerance of different viewpoints, shared experiences, and first-hand access to data. Dialogue is of vital importance.

16

Oswick et al.(2000) demonstrate that it is dialogue which generates individual and organizational learning, creating meaning and understanding. What is learned is intricately connected to the conditions in which the learning takes place. Therefore, learning means acquiring the skills necessary to behave as members of what they refer to as communities of practice. Section I.21Theories of the firm

(a) Connectionist
Organizations are networks made up of relationships and managed by communication.

(b) Spender (1996): dynamic theory of a company
Main aim of a company is application of knowledge to the production of goods and services, and not the creation or acquisition of knowledge. Organization is the entity that creates, maintains and makes use of this knowledge. Knowledge is socially constructed

(c) Social constructionist theory
Wenger (2000): communities of practice are the basic building blocks of a social learning system since they are the social ‘containers’ of the competencies that make up such a system. Communities are sets of relationships. Communities of practice are groups of people informally connected by a shared experience and the passion they gold for a common issue (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). They believe organizations are communities formed by communities of practice.

17

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.