log10 Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via infomaiton technology & Knowledge management in practice

PART I

Too great an emphasis on technologically based knowledge management initiatives has been shown to reinforce existing cultures rather than help transform them.

Trust between individuals has been shown to be necessary in order to facilitate knowledge sharing.

The objectivist epistemology will be shown as being founded on one foundational assumption: the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge.

Tacit and explicit knowledge do not represent the extremes of a spectrum, but instead represent two pure and separate forms of knowledge

Practice perspective suggests that tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are inseparable and are mutually constituted.

Knowledge is highly tacit; the effective sharing of it requires a significant amount of intense social interaction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although these executives understand that knowledge is highly people-based, they are stuck with an investment model that is geared primarily toward technology implementations.

When asked about the biggest difficulties in managing knowledge in their organization, 56 percent of the study participants cited “changing people’s behavior”.

They generally start with the implementation of a technological capability.

Only after the technological capability exists that many firms realize how vital the people factors are.

If technology solves your problem, yours was not a knowledge problem.

Technology won’t bring down your greatest knowledge sharing barriers. This doesn’t mean that IT can’t lead the effort, but there had better be plenty of folks involved who are ready to resist the strong pull of the technology-only solutions.

PART II

Hislop emphasized on social interaction, and Ruggles emphasized that human involved in IT. Both of these papers emphasis on human, but from different prospection.

Hislop’s paper distinguished the difference between objectivist and practiced knowledge management. The most different feature between both approaches was theory of knowledge. Objectivist’s knowledge was a well know theory that knowledge could be represented by two pure and separate forms, that is, explicit and tacit. Another’s knowledge was that the two forms of knowledge were indivisible. If the knowledge was based on the later approach, the sharing of explicit knowledge would have some trouble, because explicit Knowledge included some tacit knowledge. That is, when the theory of the knowledge is challenged, some conflictions of KM will arise, especially KM by IT.

Ruggle’s paper used empirical study to implement. Through the study of 431 U.S. and European organization, he found that although these executives understand that knowledge is highly people-based, they are stuck with an investment model that is geared primarily toward technology implementations.

PART III
Topic: KM technology

Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing konwledge via informaiton technology? My answer to this question is that it's possible. But remember that IT, obvioursly, is a auxiliary character, it make the KM process more efficent. The main character is still human. Since we have a KM class this semaster, many cases told us the balance of technology and human is importante.

PART IV

Hislop's notion almost denied the benefits of IT. I think no matter the objectivist or the practiced KM, they have the same objective, that is, make more change to let knowledge managed. KM is a kind of approach of management, and the value of management are make things more efficienct and profitable. If the researchers always care about the original philosophy of knowledge, the things will be complicated. That's say, whatever approach was used, the value of it is the thing which should be considered.

In this class, I heard a notion which I am impressive with it. Knowledge has somewhere ambiguous, even in explict knowledge. This question could be arison forever, but if you really want to implement KM, you had better endure the ambiguous boundary of knowledge.