Ebook Learning through knowledge management: Part 1

Trang 4

Management

Pervaiz K Ahmed, K K Lim and Ann Y E Loh

Trang 5

First published 2002

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced inany material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the

copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, England W1P 0LP Applications for the copyright holder’s written

permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publishers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Ahmed, Pervaiz K.

Learning through knowledge management1 Knowledge management

I Title II Lim, K K III Loh, Ann Y E.658.4′038

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of CongressISBN 0 7506 4710 8

For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications visit our website at www.bh.com

Trang 6

Preface vii

Acknowledgements ix

Authors’ profiles xi

Part One

1 Knowledge management and learning for organizations 32 Process approaches for management of knowledge and learning 25

3 Culture for knowledge sharing and transfer 49

4 Leadership role in the management of knowledge structures and

culture 71

5 Measurement and technology 95

6 Learning knowledge management imperatives: present into future 110

Part Two – Case Studies

Trang 7

23 Swedish National Crime Intelligence 284

24 Xerox 289

References and further reading 303

Case study references 309

Trang 8

The book is organized into two parts Part One provides a theoreticaloverview of the main issues surrounding knowledge management The partbegins by asking what is knowledge management and learning, and definesthrough discussion the broad remit of organizational action This is followedby chapters dealing with elements that play an important part in determiningthe success of knowledge management and learning initiatives Chapter 2examines the role of processes in the management of knowledge The chapterprovides a basic insight to the type of generic processes to enable the func-tions of knowledge management Chapter 3 then proceeds to examine thebehavioural side of the knowledge management equation The premise is thatwithout appropriate cultures for sharing, knowledge management and learn-ing are highly unlikely to achieve their full potential This is followed by dis-cussion of leadership’s role in knowledge management in Chapter 4 Giventhe importance of senior management support, almost all initiatives aredoomed to failure unless they are supported by the right cues and actionsfrom the top of the organization This chapter contains people-focused dis-cussion, and it examines the role of the individual and teams in knowledgemanagement Chapter 5 provides brief discussion of information technologyand measurement systems as drivers towards knowledge management Thechapter does not go into detail about technology and measurements systemsbut presents a managerially orientated discussion of key features necessary forknowledge management The final chapter in this part examines the key chal-lenges faced by organizations that are either setting off on the journey towardsknowledge management or are already part of the way there The chapterdefines four major stumbling blocks in the practice of knowledge manage-ment The discussion goes on to present an overview of projected develop-ments in the field Finally, the discussion closes by examining the widerevolutionary trajectory, of which knowledge management is a part, of organi-zation development.

Trang 9

Reflecting on the realities of a diverse set of challenges allows for a fuller andmore rounded understanding of the phenomena we have come to call knowledge management and learning.

Trang 12

Pervaiz K Ahmed currently holds the Chair in Management, at the University

of Wolverhampton Professor Ahmed is based at the University BusinessSchool, where he is the Head of the Centre for Enterprise Excellence andDirector of the Japanese Management Research Unit He has published widelyin academic and practioner journals Previously, he was associated withUnilever, working with Birds Eye Walls, Van den Berg Foods, Lever Europeand Elida Faberge He is actively engaged as an adviser to companies andinstitutes across Europe and Far East Asia He is a regular speaker at interna-tional venues in the field of Quality, Innovation and Knowledge Management.

Lim Kwang Kok is a graduate with an MBA from the University of Bradford

Management Centre Kwang Kok started his career with Matsushita ElectronicComponents, Malaysia There he worked as a Purchasing Engineer transfer-ring manufactutransfer-ring best practices to suppliers through structured develop-mental programmes He then went to the UK to research the field ofKnowledge Management He now works with the PSB Corporation,Singapore, as an Information Manager, implementing key knowledge man-agement initiatives within the organization.

Ann Y E Loh holds an MBA from the University of Bradford Management

Trang 16

Knowledge management and learningfor organizations

Many practices attempting to manage individual and corporatelearning have over time converged into what is now labelled‘knowledge management’ A number of disciplines have beeninvolved in this evolution, ranging from psychology to manage-ment This diversity has culminated in the development of arange of terms such as ‘the learning organization’, ‘intellectualcapital management’, ‘intellectual asset management’ and‘knowledge management’.

From these beginnings it is easy to conclude that the modernconceptualization of knowledge management is an umbrella forcapturing a range of organizational concerns Irrespective of theprecise terminology, there fortunately is common understandingthat knowledge management encapsulates a more organic andholistic way of understanding and leveraging people within workprocesses for business benefit.

Emergence of knowledge management

Trang 17

or even recognize In an Ernst & Young 1997 survey (Ruggles,1998), 94 per cent of respondents indicated that they could lever-age the knowledge in their organizations more effectively througha more deliberate approach to knowledge management Over 40per cent reported they had already started or completed a knowl-edge management project Supporting this trend, another survey(KPMG Management Consulting, 1998) of 100 senior executiveshighlighted that 79 per cent of respondents described their busi-nesses as managing knowledge to some greater or lesser degree.The insight that companies can benefit by applying a more struc-tured and conscious approach to managing knowledge providedit with a strong push onto the corporate agenda.

It was not long before managers began to ask how to leverageknowledge to enhance business success Indeed, a very large pro-portion of managers (87 per cent) started to describe their busi-nesses as knowledge intensive (Ernst and Young Centre forBusiness Innovation and Business Intelligence, 1997) The preva-lence of these beliefs led many companies to develop more struc-tured and conscious ways for managing learning and knowledge.Soon thereafter, many began to see management of knowledgeand learning as a core competency, fundamental to sustainingcompetitive advantage Successful knowledge management pro-grammes highlighted numerous potential benefits, such as:

● improved innovation leading to improved products and serv-ices

● improved decision making

● quicker problem solving and fewer mistakes

● reduced product development time

● improved customer service and satisfaction

● reduced research and development costs.

Trang 18

ested in pragmatic outcomes (Davenport and Klahr, 1998) – par-ticularly, ways of leveraging knowledge to develop competitivestrength for the organization (Earl and Scott, 1999) Capturing andimplementing best practices is one of the major reasons why com-panies would consider engaging in management of knowledgeand learning We will examine, in our discussion, whether knowl-edge management ‘best practices’ exist, and if so what these are,by elaborating and reflecting upon the experience of numerouscompanies in the case studies presented in Part Two.

Before moving on, it is as well to note that while a large numberof organizations have stated that their objective is to manageknowledge, many of them have not fully understood the prob-lems, opportunities, strategies or solutions required to do so.Managing learning and knowledge requires more than small-timetinkering within the organization Success demands a paradigmshift in organizational thinking.

Reflections on the importance of knowledge

While knowledge management has become rather fashionable inthe 1990s, recognition of its importance precedes current-dayinterest Edith Penrose in analysing the economics of the firmcommented on the difficulty of managing the process:‘Economists have, of course, always recognized the dominantrole that increasingly knowledge plays in economic processes,but have, for the most part, found the whole subject of knowledgetoo slippery to handle’ (Penrose, 1959).

Herbert A Simon insightfully declared that knowledge is morethan technology: ‘In the period ahead of us, more important thanadvances in computer design will be the advances we can makein our understanding of human information processing, of think-ing, problem solvthink-ing, and decision making ’ (Simon, 1968).Moreover, interest in knowledge management was not justconfined solely within the domain of academic discourse butalluded much more popularly, as the quote from H G Wellshighlights:

An immense and ever-increasing wealth of knowledge is scatteredabout the world today; knowledge that would probably suffice tosolve all the mighty difficulties of our age, but it is dispersed andunorganised We need a sort of mental clearinghouse for the mind:a depot where knowledge and ideas are received, sorted, sum-marised, digested, clarified and compared.

Trang 19

one of the earliest analyses of the changes that might accompanythe increase in knowledge use Stanford economist, Romer (1990),published the first quantitatively rigorous treatment of howthe use of knowledge affects economic growth Managementguru, Drucker (1993), provided a historical perspective of howrecent economic changes could be framed within a businesscontext.

The trend over time has been for knowledge-based firms tomove towards precognition and adaptation This is in stark con-trast to the traditional emphasis on optimization This trend isamplified by two facilitating factors: speed and interconnection.All these elements intertwine for future organizational success.Speed, in the form of transmission of information and knowl-edge, quicker decision making and innovation cycles, togetherwith interconnection of information systems, workers, organiza-tions and economies, facilitates precognition and adaptation.Castells (1996) summarizes the shift as follows: ‘What charac-terises the current technological revolution is not the centrality ofknowledge and information but the application of such knowl-edge and information to knowlknowl-edge generation, information pro-cessing, communication devices, in a cumulative feedback loopbetween innovation and the uses of innovation.’

Companies are facing up to this new reality The modern busi-ness economy does not favour organizational competencies thathave provided historic business success The new era demandsnew formats and new strategies, and managing learning andknowledge rests central within these.

Towards new approaches for competitiveadvantage

Traditional concepts

Organizations exist because collaboration of resources can yieldhigher outcomes than an individual alone Argyris and Schon(1978) note that a collection of individuals becomes an organiza-tion when the individuals start to act for the good of the organi-zation The organizational collective is awarded identity by theactions of the individuals it comprises.

Trang 20

security, accounting and managerial These divisions came aboutprior to modern thinking on marketing and sales Fayol (1919) wasone of the first people to demonstrate the concept of an ultimatesystem of operation for an organization At about the same time aGerman psychologist, Max Weber, developed a series of rules forefficient organization (Weber, 1924) He proposed that a hierarchyshould be developed, and positions in that hierarchy should beawarded on merit Additionally, he suggested that organizationsshould be divided into parts, with a clear specification for eachpart Both of these theories have merit but are somewhat outdated,having been formulated in an era when the turbulence and turmoilwe see daily in business today was virtually non-existent A par-ticular weakness in companies basing their structures on the edi-fice of these theories is that they become cast in an inflexiblemould, finding it difficult to change in the face of external forces.

The business historian and analyst, Alfred D Chandler, arguedin the 1960s that the structure of an organization governs theeffectiveness of its use of resources Therefore company strategiesshould reflect not only the use of resources, but also the specificgoals the company is trying to achieve Igor Ansoff, the strategytheorist, built on this notion by suggesting that the use ofresources was to be maximized prior to the matching of businessopportunities with organizational resources (Ansoff, 1988) Inshort, he believed in maximizing strengths and minimizing weak-nesses However, both these approaches produce a company withdistinct strengths that are difficult to change if the market moveson (as it inevitably does) Some of Ansoff’s later work focused on‘paralysis by analysis’, showing such organizations to be too rigidand slow to adapt to change.

In the 1980s, Porter developed a framework for the analysis ofcompetitive strategy (Porter, 1985) It focused on the view of anorganization as an entity driven by reactions to its external envi-ronment Porter identified five forces relevant to company suc-cess or failure and suggested that strategy should be formulatedby the organization to deal with these The five forces are:

1 The potential of new entrants to the market.2 The bargaining power of customers.

3 The threat of substitute products.4 The bargaining power of suppliers.5 The activities of existing competitors.

Trang 21

ment of such things as such as logistics, marketing, productionand sales, and support functions such as human resources andtechnical infrastructure Porter argues that a firm gains competi-tive advantage by performing these value-chain activities morecheaply, more effectively or in a better way than the competition.

Developing knowledge management and learning as corecompetencies

It is the management of internal or corporate resources that withwhich we are most concerned While market economic theorytakes the view of scarcity of resources, organizational theoryassumes that the same external resources are available to all.Therefore, only better internal resources can make a difference toachieving a competitive advantage over the competition, i.e.internal resources must perform better than the competition.Internal resources are assets such as the human resources ormachinery belonging to a particular organization These assetsmust perform its task more effectively than the competition.

Prahalad and Hamel (1990) extend this view in defining thenotion of core competencies, which are responsible for competi-tive advantage Moreover, to build and sustain competicompeti-tiveadvantage the core competencies must be difficult to imitate,non-substitutable, durable and non-transparent (Barney, 1991;Grant, 1991) Some of these core competencies are not independ-ent – other factors come into play when you depart from the the-oretical world and move into the real world: Itami (1987) statedthat irreversible assets were divided into tangible and intangiblesources of profits; Collis (1996) built on the work of Teece, Pisanoand Shuen (1994) in identifying organizational capability as thefirm’s dynamic routines that enable it to generate continuousimprovement in efficiency or effectiveness, and that it embodiedthe firm’s tacit knowledge of how to initiate or respond to change.From this perspective, the organizational capability of managingknowledge and learning is deemed a core competence.

Trang 22

uct can produce a profit stream If we look back at how that product was developed we can see that a systematic analysis of amarket or a customer need produced the concept or design forthat product There are several systematic ways of generatingsuch concepts or ideas in line with the customer’s requirements.It is the basic premise of organizational learning that such insightor process is applied to other aspects of the organization’s func-tion in order to generate a better or more efficient way of operat-ing The process described in this example, at a theoretical level,can be described as the management of knowledge for market-place advantage.

Defining knowledge and knowledgemanagement

Data, information and knowledge

To be able to manage knowledge, managers need a clear under-standing of the nature and characteristics of knowledge.Knowledge is a multifaceted construct and is difficult to come togrips with One of the most common starting points towards a

definition is to distinguish between data, information and knowl-edge Data can be described as a series of meaningless outputs

from any operation Data is the symbolic representation of num-bers, letters, facts or magnitudes and is the means through whichinformation and knowledge is stored and transferred.Information is the grouping of these outputs and placing of themin a context that makes a valuable output Information is dataarranged in meaningful patterns Knowledge involves the indi-vidual combining his or her experience, skills, intuition, ideas,judgements, context, motivations and interpretation It involvesintegrating elements of both thinking and feeling According toDrucker (1989): ‘Knowledge is information that changes some-thing or somebody, either by becoming grounds for actions, or bymaking an individual (or an institution) capable of different ormore effective action.’ This suggests that knowledge is personaland intangible in nature, whereas information is tangible andavailable to anyone who cares to seek it out.

Trang 23

off with an information base, but it is the intelligence added tothat information that converts it into knowledge Unfortunately,organizations have tended in the recent past to expend their ener-gies in data capture and storage rather than knowledge creationand use This has been the downside of the information technol-ogy revolution (see ‘The role of technoltechnol-ogy in knowledge manage-ment’ in this chapter).

Types of knowledge: tacit versus explicit

Polanyi’s (1966) now famous statement, ‘we know more than wecan tell’ highlights that much of what constitutes human skillremains unarticulated and known only to the person who has the

skill Polanyi went on to define two types of knowledge: explicitand tacit.

● Tacit knowledge is that which is very difficult to describe or

express It is the knowledge which is usually transferred bydemonstration, rather than description, and encompasses suchthings as skills

● Explicit knowledge is that which is easily written down or

cod-ified It is relatively easy to articulate and communicate, and iseasier to transfer between individuals and organizations.Explicit knowledge resides in formulae, textbooks or technicaldocuments.

In contrast to explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge cannot beexplicated fully even by an expert It is transferred from oneperson to another only through a long process of apprenticeship(Polanyi, 1966) Tacit knowledge is work-related practical know-how that is learned informally on the job (Wagner and Sternberg,1987) Although initially conceived at the individual level, tacitknowledge exists in organizations as well For example, Nelsonand Winter (1982) point out that much organizational knowledgeremains tacit because it is impossible to describe all aspects nec-essary for successful performance.

Trang 24

proce-bols, and therefore easily transferable.

Organizations have traditionally focused on the explicit part ofknowledge while ignoring tacit knowledge although it has beenestimated that only 10 per cent of an organization’s knowledge isexplicit (Grant, 1996; Hall, 1993) One major reason why tacitknowledge is rarely managed is because it is much more difficultto manage It involves extraction of personal knowledge which isdifficult to express and communicate (Nonaka and Takeuchi,1995) It is deeply embedded within individual experience,judgement and intuition involving highly impenetrable intangi-bles such as personal beliefs, perspectives and the individual’svalue system Yet, the success of any knowledge and learningprogramme to produce the much vaunted competitive advantagesdepends heavily on how well the organization manages its tacitknowledge According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) tacitknowledge lies at the very heart of organizational knowledge.

Knowledge characteristics

Knowledge is a multi-trait complex phenomenon It possesses anumber of interesting idiosyncrasies (Day and Wendler, 1998).These are presented below:

1 Knowledge is ‘sticky’ Some knowledge can be codified, but

because tacit knowledge is embedded in people’s minds, it isoften ‘sticky’ as it tends to stay in people’s heads Even withmodern tools, which can quickly and easily transfer informa-tion from one place to another, it is often very difficult andslow to transfer knowledge from person to person, since thosewho have knowledge may not be conscious of what they knowor how significant it is As knowledge is ‘sticky’, it often cannotbe owned and controlled in the way that plant and equipmentcan.

2 Extraordinary leverage and increasing returns Network effects

can emerge as more and more people use knowledge Theseusers can simultaneously benefit from knowledge and increaseits value by adding, adapting and enriching the knowledgebase Knowledge assets can grow in value as they become astandard on which others can build This is unlike traditionalcompany assets that decline in value as more people use them

3 Fragmentation, leakage and the need for refreshment As

Trang 25

knowl-every day Knowledge decays and gets old and obsolete Thus,it is hard to find and pinpoint knowledge.

5 Uncertain value The value of an investment in knowledge is

often difficult to estimate Results may not come up to expec-tations Conversely they may lead to extraordinary knowledgedevelopment Even when knowledge investments create con-siderable value, it is hard to predict who will capture the lion’sshare of it

6 Most new knowledge is context specific Knowledge is usually

created in practice for a particular use, and as such is contextspecific Therefore the question is, what aspect of it can betransferred? This would suggest that concepts such as ‘bestpractice’ are of limited use

7 Knowledge is subjective Due to its subjective nature, not all

employees might agree that specific knowledge is usable orbest practice.

Knowledge management

In sum, we can conclude that knowledge management is as a

complex, multi-layered and multifaceted concept This is

demon-strated by the number of differing opinions about the essence ofknowledge management, which is reflected by the fact that thereis no universally agreed definition of knowledge management.Nevertheless, most agree it is something to do with the systematicmanagement of knowledge to achieve business benefits

On the basis of the discussion, we propose that knowledgemanagement is the coming together of organizational processes,information processing technologies, organizational strategiesand culture for the enhanced management and leverage of humanknowledge and learning to the benefit of the company (seeFigure 1.1).

Trang 26

a ‘new’ organizational paradigm, it is only so in the sense thatattempts are now being made to systematically manage it

The role of technology in knowledge management

Managing knowledge creation requires getting individuals andteams to share information, experience and insight New tech-nologies facilitate this process In the knowledge-creation process

companies must tackle two key activities: collection and connec-tion The connecting dimension involves linking people who

need to know with those who do know, and so developing newcapabilities for nurturing knowledge and acting knowledgeably.Connecting is necessary because knowledge is embodied inpeople, and in the relationships within and between organiza-tions In carrying out collection and connection the companymust achieve a balance of the two

For many managers the rapidly falling costs of communica-tions and computing, together with the growth and accessibilityof the World Wide Web, has been instrumental in catalysingopportunities for knowledge sharing (Davenport and Prusak1988) The best information environments make it easier forpeople to work together irrespective of geographic location andtime They do this by providing immediate access to the organi-zational knowledge base and thus create value to the user Forexample:PeopleTechnologyStrategyCulturalProcessescontext

Trang 27

Information becomes knowledge through interpretation and ismade concrete in the light of the individual’s understandings ofthe particular context For example, help desks and advisoryservices can be very effective, in the short term, in connectingpeople and getting quick answers to questions, thus acceleratingcycle time and adding value for clients Organizational ‘yellowpages’ can enable staff to connect to the right people and theirknow-how more efficiently However, an organization thatfocuses entirely on connecting, with little or no attempt at col-lecting, can be very inefficient Such organizations fail to get fullleverage of sharing, and spend much time in ‘reinventingwheels’.

The collecting dimension relates to the capturing and dissemi-nating of know-how Information and communication technolo-gies facilitate codification, storage and retrieval of content.Through such collections of content, what is learned is madereadily accessible to future users However, even where compre-hensive collections of materials exist, effective use still requires

knowledgeable and skilled interpretation and alignment with the

local context to get effective results This occurs through people.Therefore, organizations which concentrate completely on col-lecting and make little or no effort to foster people connectionsend up with a repository of static documents Knowledge man-agement programmes must aim to have an integrated approach tomanaging knowledge This can be achieved through a balancebetween connecting individuals who need to know with thosewho do know, collecting what is learned as a result of these con-nections and making that easily accessible to others For exam-ple, if collected documents are linked to their authors andcontain other interactive possibilities, they can become dynamicand, hence, much more useful.

Trang 28

com-technology but, rather, through the social processes of collaborat-ing, sharing knowledge and building on each other’s ideas.

Unfortunately, most conceptions of information technology(IT) do not adequately address the human aspects of knowledge,particularly the tacit dimension (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).Interpretations of knowledge management based primarily onrules and procedures embedded in technology seem misalignedwith a dynamically changing business environment In thissense, IT systems have hampered the management of knowledgebecause IT management has led to an inward focus to the exclu-sion of changes in the external reality of business (Drucker, 1993).

Defining learning

Types of learning: adaptive versus generative

Experts in the field of knowledge generation, Argyris and Schon,

in their book Organisational Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978),take the stance that there exists two types of learning: adaptive orgenerative Adaptive learning, or single-loop learning, focuses on

solving problems without examining the appropriateness of cur-rent learning behaviours (Argyris, 1992) Adaptive organizationsfocus on incremental improvements, often based upon their pasttrack record of success Essentially, they do not question the fun-damental assumptions underlying the existing ways of doingwork This view is about coping

Increasing adaptability is only the first stage of organizationallearning The next level is double-loop learning, or generativelearning, which should be the main preoccupation for companies(Argyris, 1992) Double-loop learning emphasizes continuousexperimentation and feedback in an ongoing examination of thevery way organizations go about defining and solving problems.The essential difference between the two views is between beingadaptable and having adaptability To maintain adaptability,organizations need to operate as experimenting or self-designingorganizations, i.e they need to maintain themselves in a state offrequent, nearly continuous change (in structures, processes,domains, goals, etc.), even in the face of apparently optimal adap-tation (Hedberg, Nystrom and Starbuck, 1976)

Trang 29

of the failure Therefore, the individual has questioned existingpreconceptions and frameworks in order to come up with animproved solution He or she has taken a wider view than thatnormally taken by a technician and questioned the specific para-digms upon which his or her day-to-day work has rested This isreferred to as double-loop learning When viewed in the contextof the organization seeking competitive advantage through betteruse of internal resources it can be seen that this double-looplearning is exactly what needs to be encouraged.

Organizational learning therefore seeks to describe a process ofincreasing the overall performance of an organization by encour-aging knowledge creation and use in each of its value chain func-tions, in order to render each a source of competitive advantageor core competence It seeks to do this by arriving at a wider viewof each area, such that it can question the existing paradigms thatunderpin current operation and seek better solutions to the every-day problems.

Learning and knowledge: is there a difference?

In an interview, Peter Senge was asked to expand his views onthe learning organization A brief extract of the transcript is pro-vided below:

Question: How do you define learning?

Senge: Learning concerns the enhancement of the capacity to create.

Real learning occurs when people are trying to do something thatthey want to do Ask yourselves: why do children learn to walk?Why do they learn to talk? Because they want to They see an olderbrother walk across the room and they think, ‘Hey, this looks like agood deal’ It is their intrinsic drive to create something new, to dosomething that they have never done before that leads to new

learn-ing It is always related to doing somethlearn-ing.Question: Is doing enough?

Senge: No Real learning has two critical dimensions that are

embedded in the phrase ‘expand the capacity to create’ Just creat-ing is not enough Say you strike it rich by winncreat-ing the lottery Youbrought the right card, which leads to extraordinary results But you

have not expanded your capacity to win the lottery You did not

Trang 30

Senge: It is not My colleague Fred Kofman at MIT [Massachusetts

Institute of Technology] says that ‘learning is the enhancement of orincrease in knowledge, and knowledge is the capacity for effectiveaction in a domain, where effectiveness is assessed by a communityof fellow practitioners’ There has to be some assessment.

Learning or knowledge is different from information A funda-mental misunderstanding that permeates Western society is thatlearning and knowledge does not need to be related to action.Colloquially, when we use the word ‘learn’ we most often use itto mean ‘taking in information’ We say, ‘I learned all about fini-cal accounting for executives I took the course yesterday’ InJapan, they say that you learn when you know it in your body –literally The Japanese say you do not say, ‘I know it’ because youheard it, but because you know it is in you This is an importantdistinction There is not knowledge until it is in your body, notjust in your head You may not necessarily understand the prin-ciples of gyroscopic motion that make riding possible, but youknow it within you when you know how to ride a bicycle.

Therefore, learning or knowledge has a cognitive or intellectualdimension, both of which are intricately intertwined andassessed relative to the needs for action This goes back to JohnDewey (1933), who said: ‘All learning is a continuous process ofdiscovering insights, inventing new possibilities for action, pro-ducing the actions and observing the consequences leading toinsights.’

In our view learning involves the action(s) of using existinginsight or knowledge to produce new insight or knowledge.Knowledge is a state of understanding (explicit and tacit) whichhelps guide the form and shape of action(s) Learning and knowl-edge therefore mutually reinforce each other in a cycle The act oflearning provides knowledge and understanding, which in turnfeed further learning Working in concert, the two create a virtu-ous spiral of knowledge learning (see Figure 1.2).

Approaches to organizational learning

Ever since Agryris and Schon (1978), raised the question ‘what isan Organisation, that it learn’, there has been a widespread

Trang 31

Learning = P + Qwhere

P= programmed learning that comes from books, lectures or sec-ondary sources

Q= learning that comes from asking questions, looking at the evi-dence, and discussing or drawing conclusions based on experi-ence.

Action learning according to Revans ‘builds primarily on Q’ Hisbasic idea was to organize teams so that every team had two jobs:one is to solve a problem or to complete a project, the other is tolearn from the job Afterwards the learning is to be written down,shared and submitted to the planning group or chief executiveofficer (CEO) (Revans, 1983).

Another strand in the evolution of the learning organizationemerges in the work of Arie de Geus De Geus, while working forRoyal Dutch Shell, was struck by the fact that the average lifeexpectancy of most companies was less than forty years Yet,some firms were alive and vigorous after more than 200 years DeGeus put forward that most corporations die prematurely – fromlearning disabilities They are somehow unable to adapt andevolve as the world around them changes From the Shell teamstudies, De Geus identified four common traits in successful cor-porate citizens:

● a sensitivity to their environments (and potential changeswithin) which represented their ability to learn.

Trang 32

build a community and persona for itself, and values are oftenthe foundation of this characteristic.)

● tolerance for new or different ways of thinking and acting(often associated with decentralization), which provides anopenness for learning and creates a willingness to look objec-tively at the total ecology of the organization.

● conservative financing (a sensible planned approach towardinvestments).

Slocum, McGill and Lei (1994) note that leading companiesdeploy learning strategies for market dominance These compa-nies adopt three management practices (summarized in Table 1.1)that capitalize on the company’s capabilities and culture as wellas its competitive strengths:

1 Develop a strategic intent to learn.

2 A commitment to continuous experimentation.3 An ability to learn from successes and failures.

A manager’s greatest challenge is to hone these practices anddrive them relentlessly through the organization These practices(listed below) are a stark contrast to strategies that have workedso well in the past.

Table 1.1 Pillars of learning strategy

In the pastPillarsLearning orientatedstrategy

Known capability Strategic intent to learn Any skillAny capabilityKnown market Commitment to Any product

experimentation Any marketKnown result Learning from past Any process of

successes and unlearning

failures Any problem-solving

process

Source: Slocum, McGill and Lei (1994)

Trang 33

Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.

Table 1.2 Differences in approach between traditional andlearning firms

Strategic dimensionsTraditionalLearning

Underlying premise Fit the firm to the Change the environmentenvironment to fit the form

Dominant paradigm Mass, size, chess-like ManoeuvrabilityGuiding objective Preserve advantage Renew advantageCompetitive/analysis Generic strategies to Create new markets

lock in local markets

Resources/means Invested in fixed Invest in evolving/

assets emerging opportunities

Problem solving logic Formal planning; Intuitive, sense makingquantitative analysis

Basis of thinking Linear, incremental Breakthrough, quantumOrganizational design SBU-based, Skill-based,

hierarchial boundaries boundaryless

Roles of alliances Cost reduction Learning new insightsfrom partners

Role of customers Conceived as Conceived as groups,marketing tools individuals to learn

from

Source: Slocum, McGill and Lei (1994)

Knowledge management strategies

Companies in their attempts to implant knowledge managementinto their organizations can follow many possible routes Ahmed(2001) examining performance outcomes of companies followingknowledge programmes suggests that there exist three maingeneric strategies and one emerging generic strategy The main

strategies are: reactive, mechanistic and organic The emergent

form is the adaptive knowledge management strategy The char-acteristic associated with of each of these knowledge manage-ment strategies are:

1 Reactive knowledge management (or reactors)

(a) ad hoc programme (implicit)(b) piecemeal implementation

Trang 34

(d) lacking senior management support

(e) driven by small group of middle management

(f) poorly understood benefits by individual employee(g) poor communications and awareness

(h) group/department scale involvement(i) IT-driven (data-transfer led)

(j) rigid functional structures

(k) benefits purely understood in technical gains (efficiency)(l) little alignment with long-term strategies.

2 Mechanistic knowledge management(a) systematic programme (explicit)(b) organization-wide implementation(c) mandated by senior management(d) driven by middle management(e) organization-wide awareness(f) organization-wide involvement

(g) good awareness of potential gains for the individual(h) IT driven (but processes and systems led)

(i) managed structures and processes

(j) benefits broadly understood (efficiency and effectiveness).3 Organic knowledge management

(a) systematic programme (explicit)(b) organization-wide implementation(c) mandated by senior management(d) driven by middle management(e) organization-wide awareness(f) organization-wide involvement

(g) good awareness of potential gains for the individual(h) people-driven (but backed by IT) processes and systems(i) benefits broadly understood (efficiency and effectiveness)(j) open and evolving structures/processes

(k) alignment with strategy.

On examining these summary characteristics, the differencesbetween the reactive and organic approach appears to be rela-tively clear The reactive knowledge management approach ischaracterized by an overall narrow technical and efficiency ledfocus It is also a group whose knowledge strategy can be statedto be atypically reactive to outside forces The defining differencebetween the mechanistic and organic approaches appears to bemuch more subtle The key detectable difference is that organicknowledge management tends to be people driven, placing heavyemphasis of such things as communities of practice and supportsystems, like rewards and incentives to induce sharing Themechanistic approach on the other hand, although it possessesmany of the characteristics of the organic approach is driven by a

Trang 35

much stronger emphasis on IT, and as a whole the approach istop-down driven and heavily prescriptive and structured in out-look The emerging adaptive format is rare, and appears toencompass organic features with the addition that it containsvastly more open structures and permeable boundaries in itsoperations and activities These features lend themselves toendowing a greater internal openness for experimentation, lead-ing to enhanced adaptability.

Stages in knowledge management evolution

Mapping performance against average length of time that aknowledge management programme has been followed producesa very interesting trajectory (see Figure 1.3) Figure 1.3 shows,very clearly, that there appears to be an evolutionary trajectory inknowledge management strategies It can be tentatively suggestedthat companies embark upon knowledge management typicallywithin a small part of the organization These first initiatives arelikely to be in reaction to some external attenuating circumstanceand are likely to be driven primarily by IT-led initiatives.If successful, these programmes are rolled out organization-wide.Companies that do not succeed are likely to drop the programme,

hence the low average life period of the reactive group The

Trang 36

roll-out is accompanied by a wider corporate recognition andbuy-in.

The task of managing large-scale programmes brings with it theneed for formal structures of management In keeping with its ITorigin, most of these structures and processes are driven through

the management of IT This is the mechanistic stage of knowledge

management.

Over time, the knowledge management programme becomesincreasingly embedded within the cultural fabric of the company.At this stage, the practices become more open rather than

struc-tured and mechanically driven This organic stage becomes a

stepping-stone to higher-level possibilities of organizationallearning and competitive advantage

In the future, companies will have to be highly geared towardsgenerating innovative solutions to current problems, and willhave to anticipate the environmental flux The higher sensitivitytowards utilizing and leveraging knowledge assets enables

high-level adaptability This is the adaptive stage of evolution Even

further into the future, companies will begin to build higherlevels of precognition and perception This will result in the evo-lution to new platforms of organizational management

Conclusion

The objective of organizational learning and knowledge manage-ment is to create a motivated and energized work environmanage-mentthat supports the continuous creation, collection, use and reuseof both personal and organization knowledge in the pursuit ofbusiness success Central to this equation are two fundamentalassets: people (whose knowledge resides in skill, expertise expe-rience, intuition, etc.) and organizations (whose knowledge isembedded within its culture, processes and systems) How wellthese assets can be capitalized on defines the extent of competi-tive advantage that may be built The process of acquiring andusing such assets (which are often referred to as generative assets)is what we have come to refer to as knowledge management.Perhaps of even greater significance is the emergence of the beliefthat generative assets can and must be nurtured and managed Insimple words, it is the duty and function of management tomanage knowledge.

The dynamics of the modern marketplace provide a premiumto those that are able to utilize their intellectual assets effectivelyand efficiently These companies will be the survivors of tomor-row The question to ask then is – what and how can one developeffective knowledge management and learning systems? Is

Trang 37

Trang 38

2

Process approaches for managementof knowledge and learning

Present-day corporations have become enamoured with process-led organization design It is easy to see why In the modern daythere is general acceptance that the idea of a functional depart-ment handing over to another functional departdepart-ment is not theway to organize for work For instance, gone are the days whenthe product designer’s work was over with the delivery of a set ofdrawings for the manufacturing managers to make The ‘han-dover’ practice of yesteryear recalls situations in which manufac-turing personnel would be, quite justifiably, appalled at beingasked to produce to a design that gave no consideration to themanufacturing process, product quantities, tooling, etc Thesetradition-bound companies were rigid, hierarchical functionali-ties They were insular and isolated with poor interfunctional co-ordination Managers in these companies found it difficult to getthings done because work was fragmented and compartmental-ized Process organization and management appears to provideone way of solving these problems In the simplest terms,processes can be defined as collections of interlinked tasks andactivities that combine to transform inputs into outputs Theseinputs and outputs can be as varied as materials, products, infor-mation and people.

Trang 39

before process organization there was a focus either on the trees(individual tasks or activities) or the forest (the organization as awhole) The process approach is able to combine the two, therebyproviding a much needed integration of the jigsaw that capturesthe realities of work practice This is key to the overall effective-ness of organizational form and function.

The knowledge creation process

In 1995, Nonaka and Takeuchi published what is now one of thekey texts on the creation of organizational knowledge Accordingto Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), making new knowledge availableto others should be a central activity for organizations, and is thedefining characteristic of the phenomena of knowledge ment Knowledge management at its heart involves the manage-ment of social processes at work to enable sharing and transfer ofknowledge between individuals Sveiby (1997) and Nonaka(1994) assert that business managers need to realize that, unlikeinformation, knowledge is embedded in people, and knowledgecreation occurs in the process of social interaction.

Knowledge management encapsulates assessing, changing andimproving individual skills and competencies and/or behaviour.Knowledge in this sense is a process involving a complex set ofinteractions between the individual and the organization Ananalogy to describe this interactive process is the game of rugby.Rugby provides a metaphor for the speed and flexibility withwhich companies, especially Japanese, use knowledge whendeveloping new products As in rugby, the ball gets passed withinthe team as the latter moves up the field as a unit The ball beingpassed around among the team contains a shared understandingof what the company stands for, where it is going, what kind of aworld it wants to live in and how to make that world a reality.Highly subjective insights, intuitions and hunches are alsoembraced, i.e what the ball contains is ideals, values and emo-tions Ball movement in rugby is borne out of the team members’interplay on the field It is determined on the spot, based ondirect experience and trial and error It requires an intensiveinteraction among members of the team This interactive processis analogous to how total knowledge is created within an organi-zation.

Trang 40

individ-Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.

ual and transforming it to explicit knowledge renders that knowl-edge available to a much wider range of individuals Innovationis formulated in the mind of the individual but the social inter-action of the individual with others is often the stimulus for thiscreativity Nonaka calls this the ontological dimension of knowl-edge creation He states that social interaction creates a forum fornurturing, transforming and legitimizing new knowledge It is apremise that organizations should amplify this process byenabling social interaction to take place, by providing mecha-nism and support for these processes to occur.

Nonaka details specific circumstances that must exist in order

to propagate knowledge creation in the individual: those of inten-tion, autonomy and fluctuation Intention is concerned with how

individuals approach the world and try to make sense of theirenvironment Nonaka quotes Edmund Husserl (1968), who deter-mined consciousness to be only in existence when related to anobject that the individual was conscious of, or directed his or herattention towards It arises, endures and disappears with the sub-ject’s commitment to an object For the creation of new knowl-edge an individual’s consciousness of the object in question mustbe very intimate.

It is interesting to note that knowledge comes about as a resultof an individual’s understanding of information This under-standing can only be attained when the information is evaluatedin the light of that individual’s previous knowledge and values,i.e the lens through which the individual views the informationwill ultimately affect the knowledge generated The intention ofthe mind not only creates the possibility of meaning, but alsolimits its form Our paradigms limit our view and our percep-tions If the purest of truths are to be the goal of an organization’screated knowledge, then the organization must nurture a neutralatmosphere that welcomes truly free thought This leads on toNonaka’s second dimension: autonomy.

Increases in autonomy in an organization allow individuals tobring their own paradigms to bear on the problem in hand It alsoallows the individual to ascend Maslow’s hierarchy of needs toself-actualization or attaining a sense of purpose.

An excellent stimulus to innovation is viewing a problem in anew light Circulating the problem to a wide number of peopleand assimilating each view can bring this about Alternatively, itis possible to artificially stimulate the creative process by intro-ducing a random element event The design theorist, VictorPapanek (1972), suggests a procedure called ‘cognitive disassoci-ation’ The problem at hand is viewed in the light of a selectionof random concepts, which are drawn from a dictionary Theserandom interventions and connections stimulate the person to

Định dạng
Số trang	153
Dung lượng	870,76 KB