Knowledge Management Models: Advanced IT Management IV 30 July 2008

Chapter 3:
Knowledge Management
Models
Advanced IT Management IV
30 July 2008
Chapter Objectives
• Understand the key tenets of the major

knowledge management theoretical models in
use today.
• Link the KM frameworks to key KM concepts
and the major phases of the KM cycle.
• Explain the complex adaptive system model of
KM and how it addresses the subjective and
dynamic nature of content to be managed.
Advanced IT Management 4
Introduction
• KM initiative success depends on a strong

theoretical foundation.
• The major KM activities described in the KM
cycle (chapter 2) require a conceptual
framework to operate within; otherwise the
activities will not be coordinated and will not
produce the expected KM benefits.
Introduction
• The following KM models are presented:

– Choo (1998), Weick (2001), Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995), Wiig (1993), von Krogh and Roos (1995),
Boisot (1998), Beer (1984), and Bennet and Bennet
(2004).
• All the models present different perspectives on
the key conceptual elements that form the
infrastructure of KM.
Introduction
• This chapter describes, compares, & contrasts

each model so as to provide a sound
understanding of the discipline of KM.
• All the KM models discussed here try to
address KM from a holistic & comprehensive
perspective.
• This holistic approach encompasses all types
of content to be managed, from data to
information to knowledge, from tacit to explicit
& back to tacit-knowledge-type conversions.
Major Theoretical KM Models
• The following models were selected because

they possess the following critical
characteristics:
• 1. They represent a holistic approach to
knowledge management (i.e., they are
comprehensive and take into consideration
people, process, organization, and technology
dimensions).
• 2. They have been reviewed, critiqued, and

discussed extensively in the KM literature, by
practitioners, academics, and researchers
alike.
• 3. The models have been implemented and
field tested with respect to reliability and
validity.
• 1. The von Krogh and Roos Model of

Organizational Epistemology:
• Von Krogh and Roos adopt the connectionist approach.
• The connectionist approach provides a solid theoretical basis for a
model of KM & is a component of the models discussed in this
chapter.
• In their org epistemology KM model, knowledge

resides both in the individuals of an org &, at
the social level, in the relations btwn the
individuals.
• Knowledge is said to be “embodied”; i.e.,

“everything known is known by somebody”
• Connectionism maintains that there can be no
knowledge without a knower.
• This approach seems more appropriate for
underpinning a theoretical model of KM,
especially considering that the linkage between
knowledge and those who “absorb” & make use
of the knowledge is viewed as an unbreakable
bond.
• Note the Von Krogh and Roos model has a

different perspective from the cognitive org
epistemology which views org knowledge as a
self-organizing system in which humans are
transparent to the infor from the outside.
• i.e. we take in infor through our senses, & use
this infor to build our mental models.
• Hence the org’s cognitive competence is
formed by a “linear” summation of individuals
as cognitive entities.
• 2. The Nonaka and Takeuchi Knowledge

Spiral Model:
– knowledge is largely “group knowledge,” easily
converted and mobilized from tacit to explicit,
(along the epistemological dimension) & easily
transferred and shared along the individual to the
group to the organization, in the ontological
dimension.
• Nonaka and Takeuchi underline the necessity

of integrating the two approaches, from the
cultural, epistemological, & organizational
points of view, in order to acquire new cultural
& operational tools for better knowledge-
creating organizations.
• Traditional (Japanese) being: Knowledge
begins with the individual.
• Western: Organization is at the core of
Knowledge.
• Their construct of the hypertext organization

formalizes the need for integrating the
traditionally opposed concepts of Western and
Japanese schools of thought.
• They believe in the four modes of knowledge
conversion, as illustrated in Figure 3-1:
– 1. From tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge: the
process of socialization.
– 2. From tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge: the

process of externalization.
– 3. From explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge:
the process of combination.
– 4. From explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge: the
process of internalization.
• Knowledge creation is not a sequential

process.
• It depends on a continuous and dynamic
interaction btwn tacit & explicit knowledge thru-
out the 4 quadrants.
• The knowledge spiral Figure 3-2 shows how
organizations articulate, organize and
systematize individual tacit knowledge.
• Organizations produce & develop tools,

structures, and models to accumulate & share
knowledge.
• The knowledge spiral is a continuous activity of
knowledge flow, sharing, & conversion by
individuals, communities, & the organization
itself.
• They describe the following “Enabling

Conditions for Organizational Knowledge
Creation”:
– 1. Intention: an organization’s aspiration to its
goals.
– 2. Autonomy: condition whereby individuals act
autonomously, according to the “minimum critical
specification” principle, and are involved in cross-
functional self-organized teams.
– 3. Fluctuation and Creative Chaos: condition that

stimulates the interaction btwn the org & the
external environment &/or creates fluctuations &
breakdowns by means of creative chaos or
strategic equivocality.
– 4. Redundancy: existence of information that goes
beyond the immediate operational requirements of
org members; competing multiple teams on the
same issue; & strategic rotation of personnel.
– 5. Requisite Variety: internal diversity to match the

variety & complexity of the environment, & to
provide everyone in the organization with the
fastest access to the broadest variety of necessary
information; flat & flexible org structure interlinked
with effective information networks.
• 3. The Choo Sense-making KM Model:

– It focuses on how information elements are
selected and subsequently fed into organizational
actions.
• Organizational action results from the
concentration & absorption of information from
the external environment into each successive
cycle, as illustrated in Figure 3-3. Each phase,
sense making, knowledge creation, & decision
making, has an outside stimulus or trigger.
• Sense making: Meaning is socially constructed

as info is filtered thru sense-making behaviour
from experience base.
• Create new knowledge: transform individual
knowledge into shareable knowledge and
information. New meaning of external world.
• Decision making: the organization changes
behaviour according to it’s goals, objectives &
strategy. This leads to the next round of the
cycle.
• 4. The Wiig Model for Building and Using

Knowledge:
• Its principle is that in order for knowledge to be
useful and valuable, it must be organized
through a form of semantic network that is
connected, congruent, and complete, and that
has perspective and purpose.
• Completeness: how much relevant knowledge
is available from a given source.
• Connectedness: the well-understood & defined

relations btwn the different knowledge objects.
• Congruence: all the facts, concepts,
perspectives, values, judgments, & associative
& relational links btwn the knowledge objects
are consistent.
• Perspective & purpose: the phenomenon
through which we “know something” but often
from a particular point of view or for a specific
purpose.
• 5. The Boisot I-Space KM Model:

• The Boisot KM model is based on the key
concept of an “information good” that differs
from a physical asset.
• A knowledge good is one that also possesses a
context within which it can be interpreted.
• Effective knowledge sharing requires that
senders & receivers share the context as well
as the coding scheme.
• Boisot proposes the following two key points:

• 1. The more easily data can be structured &
converted into information, the more diffusible it
becomes.
• 2. The less data that has been so structured
requires a shared context for its diffusion, the
more diffusible it becomes.
• These two underpin a simple conceptual
framework, the Information Space or I-Space
KM model.
• Data is structured & understood through the

processes of codification & abstraction.
• Codification is the creation of content
categories—the fewer the # of categories, the
more abstract the codification scheme.
• It is assumed that a well-codified abstract
content is much easier to understand & apply
than a highly contextual content.
• 6. Intelligent Complex Adaptive System

Models of KM:
– CAS: Orgs that are composed of a large # of self-
organizing components, each of which seeks to
maximize its own specific goals but also operates
according to the rules & context of relationships
with the other components & the external world.
• The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System

(ICAS) model is made-up of living subsystems
that combine, interact, & coevolve to provide
the capabilities of an advanced, intelligent
technological & sociological adaptive
enterprise.
• In an ICAS, the intelligent components consist
of people who are empowered to self-organize
but who remain part of the overall corporate
hierarchy.
• The challenge is to take advantage of the

strengths of people while getting them to
cooperate & collaborate to leverage knowledge
& to maintain a sense of unity of purpose.
• Organizations take from the environment,
transform those inputs into higher-value
outputs, & provide them to customers &
stakeholders.
• The key processes in the ICAS KM model can

be summarized as: understanding, creating
new ideas, solving problems, making decisions,
& taking actions to achieve desired results.
• In this model for an org to survive &
successfully compete it also needs 8 emergent
characteristics: organizational intelligence,
shared purpose, selectivity, optimum
complexity, permeable boundaries, knowledge
centricity, flow, & multidimensionality.
• Org intelligence: the capacity of the firm to

innovate, acquire knowledge, & apply that
knowledge to relevant situations.
• Shared purpose: the org’s ability to integrate &
mobilize its resources thru a continuous, 2-way
communication with its large # of relatively
independent subsystems.
• Optimum complexity: the right balance btwn

internal complexity (i.e., # of different relevant
org states) to deal with the external
environment without losing sight of the overall
goal & notion of a firm that despite its size
doesn't lose its common identity.
• Selectivity: the filtering of incoming information
from the outside world.
• Good filtering requires broad knowledge of the

org, specific knowledge of the customer, & a
strong understanding of the firm’s strategic
goals.
• Knowledge centricity: the aggregation of
relevant information from self-organization,
collaboration, & strategic alignment.
• Flow: enables knowledge centricity & facilitates

the connections & continuity needed to
maintain unity & give coherence to org
intelligence.
• Permeable boundaries: are essential if ideas
are to be exchanged & built upon.
• Multidimensionality: the org flexibility that
ensures that knowledge workers have the
competencies, perspectives, & cognitive ability
to address issues & solve problems.
Strategic Implications of KM Models
• Models help us to put the different pieces of a

puzzle together in a way that leads to a deeper
understanding of both the pieces and the
ensemble they make up.
Strategic Implications of KM Models
• Models:
– supplement the concept analysis approach
outlined in chapter 1 in order to take our
understanding to a deeper level.
– Are fairly new to the practice or business of KM, &
they represent the way ahead.
– A coherent model of knowledge-driven processes is
crucial to the KM initiatives’ ability to address
strategic business goals, even if only partially.
• KM is not a silver bullet, it will not solve all
organizational problems.
Practical Implications of KM Models
• KM models ensure a certain level of

completeness or depth in KM practice: a means
of ensuring that all critical factors have been
addressed.
• The 2nd practical benefit of a model-driven KM
approach is that models not only enable a
better description of what is happening but also
help provide a better prescription for meeting
org goals.
Practical Implications of KM Models
• KM models help to explain what is happening

now, & they provide us with a valid blueprint or
road map for getting organizations where they
want to be with their knowledge management
efforts.
Chapter Summary
• KM encompasses data, information, &

knowledge (sometimes referred to collectively
as content) & addresses both tacit & explicit
forms of knowledge.
• The von Krogh & Roos KM model takes an
organizational epistemology approach &
emphasizes that knowledge resides both in the
minds of individuals & in the relations they form
with other individuals.
Chapter Summary
• The Nonaka & Takeuchi KM model focuses on

knowledge spirals that explain the
transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge & then back again as the basis for
individual, group, & org innovation & learning.
• Choo & Weick adopt a sense-making approach
to model KM that focuses on how information
elements are fed into organizational actions
thru sense making, knowledge creating, &
decision making.
Chapter Summary
• The Wiig KM model is based on the principle

that in order for knowledge to be useful &
valuable, it must be organized thru a form of
semantic network that is connected, congruent,
& complete, & that has perspective & purpose.
Chapter Summary
• CASs are well suited to model KM as they

view the org much like a living entity concerned
with independent existence & survival.
• Some use this approach to describe the
cohesiveness, complexity, & selective
pressures that operate on intelligent complex
adaptive systems (ICAS).

Knowledge Management Models: Advanced IT Management IV 30 July 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Management Models: Advanced IT Management IV 30 July 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3:

• Understand the key tenets of the major

• KM initiative success depends on a strong

• The following KM models are presented:

• This chapter describes, compares, & contrasts

• The following models were selected because

• 2. They have been reviewed, critiqued, and

• 1. The von Krogh and Roos Model of

• In their org epistemology KM model, knowledge

• Knowledge is said to be “embodied”; i.e.,

• Note the Von Krogh and Roos model has a

• 2. The Nonaka and Takeuchi Knowledge

• Nonaka and Takeuchi underline the necessity

• Their construct of the hypertext organization

– 2. From tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge: the

• Knowledge creation is not a sequential

• Organizations produce & develop tools,

• They describe the following “Enabling

– 3. Fluctuation and Creative Chaos: condition that

– 5. Requisite Variety: internal diversity to match the

• 3. The Choo Sense-making KM Model:

• Sense making: Meaning is socially constructed

• 4. The Wiig Model for Building and Using

• Connectedness: the well-understood & defined

• 5. The Boisot I-Space KM Model:

• Boisot proposes the following two key points:

• Data is structured & understood through the

• 6. Intelligent Complex Adaptive System

• The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System

• The challenge is to take advantage of the

• The key processes in the ICAS KM model can

• Org intelligence: the capacity of the firm to

• Optimum complexity: the right balance btwn

• Good filtering requires broad knowledge of the

• Flow: enables knowledge centricity & facilitates

• Models help us to put the different pieces of a

• KM models ensure a certain level of

• KM models help to explain what is happening

• KM encompasses data, information, &

• The Nonaka & Takeuchi KM model focuses on

• The Wiig KM model is based on the principle

• CASs are well suited to model KM as they

You might also like