2009年3月29日 星期日

KM log5 Managing codified knowledge & KM in three organizations

PART I

Manageing Codified Knowledge

1. Even knowledge and expertise that can be shared is often quickly made obsolete.
2. Knowledge about something is called declarative knowledge
Knowledge of how something occurs or is performed is called procedural knowledge.
Knowledge why something occurs is called causal knowledge.
3. Knowledge that is inherently inarticulable yet which firms attempt to make explicit may result in the essence of the knowledge being lost, and performance suffering.
4. Articulable knowledge that has been made explicit represents an exploited opportunity, while leaving inarticulable knowledge in its native form respects the power of tacit knowledge. Both indicate appropriate mangement of the balance between tacit and explicit knowledge.
5. Imagination and flexibility are important, knowledge routinization may be inappropriate.
6. KM is 10% technology and 90% people.

Knowledge Management in three organization: an exploratory study
1. the character of the client and the way that the organization interacted with the client set the framework of the knowledge structures in very important ways.
2. communication culture was very dependent on the management policies adopted by each orgnization, and the commercial nature of their interaction with other organizations.
3. Despite the limited awareness of knowledge management theory and retoric, there was a pervasive understanding of the role of knowledge in ther organization, with some quite well-developmed strategies of embedding knowledge in the organization's operation.
4. the nature of knowledge and knowledge process were intimately related to the nature of the organization, its function, culture, structure and position in the market.
5. the specific nature of the organization, its structure and its specific context must be considered when developing models or theoretical frameworks of kownledge management.

PART II
Both of these articles used practical cases to interpret KM. The first one provided a framwork for configuring a firm's organizational and technical resources capabilities to leverage its codified knowledge. Another one used a exact research method to study different firm's kownledge management.

KM in the first article was separated into 4 parts :
1. the context of knowledge management
2. new organizational roles
3. managing knowledge prcessing applications
4. benefits

The important opinions in this article, I think, are that
1. codified knowledge is explicit knowledge
2. appropriate management of the balance between tacit and explicit knowledge
3. respecting the role of knowledge and learning may be the most effective approach to building a solid and enduring competitive foundation for business organizations.

KM in the second article was separated into 7 parts(in terms of Devenport & Prusak's opinion):
1. the organization: environment and functions
2. governing structures
3. the client
4. knowledge stratege
5. staff skills and development
6. the concept of knowledge
7. information service

The important opinions in this article, I think, are that
1. processes and value of KM are different among organizational culture, commercial structure and other features of each firm.
2. theory and practice need bridge the gap.

PART III
TOPIC: Practices of Knowledge Management

This week, we saw 5 examples: TRI, BL, Law firm, Educational institute, Local Council. In those cases we can realize that there are various dimentions to operate KM, and the dimentions which were choosen by each firms must different in terms of their strategies and organizational ecology.

PART IV

Through those cases mentioned in the articles, we can realize that different organization had different requirements of KM. As the same as the second article said: Knowledge structures and cultures differed substantially between organizations, and were heavily influenced by the commercial enviroment.

The firms, TRI & BL, recited in first article used KM process to develop their KM structure. On contrary, those three firms studied in the second article didn't know KM theory very well, but they still had some activities like KM. This reaffirm the inherence of KM that "KM is an old and new subject". Each organization must have some original activities to treat their own particular knowledge, even they didn't know what KM is. We might consider that KM is an old thing which is rewritten and basic on daily procedure of organizations.

The one makes me most impressive is that "theory and practice need bridge gap", theories usually don't relate practices very well. This situation not only occur in KM, but in many fields.

沒有留言: