KM log11 A content analysis of literature regarding knowledge management opportunities for librarians

PART I
1. Knowledge management is about creating, capturing, organising, retrieving, disseminating, sharing and re-using knowledge for the benefit of organizations.
2. The concept of corporate memory refer to the collective tacit and explicit knowledge.
3. Librarians need to get engaged with issues that have not been part of their tasks previously, and change and adapt their duties from gatekeepers to gateways of information to fulfill the role of knowledge manager successfully.
4. Traditional information management principles include organizing, retrieving, repackaging and uilising information, which are important for effective knowledge management applications.
5. Librarians understand the information seeking behaviour of users, which give them an advantage over those people who deal exclusively with the technology of information because they add human value to information.
6. Enhancing the role and employers expectations of the profession depends on the efforts of individual librarians.

PART II
The authors used content analysis to discuss the opportunities of KM for librarians. They said, the librarians need to improve their value to rejucenate profession.
Because of the training and specialty of librarians, they are suitable to be consultants for company which want to implement KM. But there were still something need to learn, like socail skill, IT knowledege and manage skill .etc..

PART III
Topic: KM careers.

From this article, we realize the outline of abilities except librarian of KM. For instance, socail interaction, risking taking, management skill and bussiness knowledge, technology skill.

PART IV
In terms of the author's oppinion, librarian could be a KM consultant for company. Although they described a lot of abilities of librarian for knowledge manangement, I still think that librarian is not the only one candidate for the career of KM. More exactly, the expert of business or management are more suitalbe for that kind of job. After all, the business environment is a extremly practicle place. If librarians didn't invole in there for enough time, they might not engage in the job very well, because the surrounding is totally different from library.

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.

Log9 Learning from notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation

PART I

1. Metal models and structural properties significantly influence how groupware technology is implemented and used.
2. The findings suggest that where people's mental models do not understand or appreciate the collaborative nature of groupware, such technologies will be intepreted and used as if they were more familiar technologies, such as personal, stand-alone software.
3. Where the premises underlying the groupware technology are counter-cultural to an organization's structural properties, the technology will be unlikely to facilitate collective use and value.
4. Cognitive elements are the mental models or frames of references that individuals have about the world, their organization, work, technology, and so on.
5. How users change their technological frames in response to a new technology is influenced by (i) the kind and amount of information about the product communicated to them, and (ii) the nature and form of training they receive on the product.
6. If people have a poor or inappropriate understanding of the unique and different features of a new technology they may resist using it, or may not integrate it appropriately into their work practices.
7. Training users on new technology is central to their understanding of its capabilities and appreciating how it differs from other technologies with which they are familiar.
8. Structural properties of organizations encompass the reward systems, policies, work practices, and norms that shape and are shaped by the everyday action of organizational members.
9. The pyramidal structure and the hierarchical "up or out" career path promote and reinforce an individualistic culture among consultants, where those who have not yet attained principal status vie with each other to get the relatively few promotions handed out each year.

PART II

This paper explores the introduction of a groupware technology - Lotus Corporation's Notes - into one office of a large organization to understand the chages in work practices and social interaction facilitated by the technology.

The finding are that mental model and structural property are important elements which influence IT in one organization.

In mental model, regarding as cognitive elements, in Alpha was not performed well. They didn't communicatie about Note and train their workers. In structural elements, the Alpha didn't establish reward system, police and procedure of access. In addition, the firm culture and norms in Alpha were totally opposite to Note. Consequently, at the initial time when Note was launched was almost failure.

PART III

Topic: Organizational Issues

The communication of new IT is important. It's will influence the usage and notion of employees. In addition, the structure of a company is also an important issue. If the policy and culture do not fit the IT, the resualt of it won't be controled as the beginning as you thought.

PART IV

Although this paper didn't metion any knowledge management, but the purpose is the same as KM.

After I read this paper, I thought the culture in a organization need to change to fit the KM. But I remembered that couple weeks ago, we had an article about culture barriers. The conclusion was that there is no need to change culture to fit KM, but find the way to link with the core values. So, I reconsidered the paper we read this week, culture changing is not really easy, and may course some serious damage. Like the Alpha, it not suitalble to change their work style or to force them to share something. On the other hand, if they had found the core value and made the Note improve or fit it, Note could have been successful in another way.

KM8 Building a learning organization

PART I
1. In the absence of learing, campanies - and individuals - simply repeat old practices.
2. Their discussion of learning organizations have often been reverential and utopian, filled with near mystical terminology.
3. Three critical issue: 1st is the question of meaning; 2nd the question of management; 3rd the question of measurement.
4. Without accompanying changes in the way that work gets done, only the potential for improvement exitsts.
5. All these organizations have been effective at creating or acquiring new knowledge but notalby less successful in applying that knowledge to their own activities.
6. Learning organizations are skilled at five main activities: 1st: systematic problem solving, 2nd: experimenttation with new approaches, 3rd: learning from their own experience and past history, 4th learning form the experiences and best practicies of others, 5thtransferring knowlege quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.
7. If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.
8. Most successful examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time.
9. The first step is to foster an environment that is conducive to learning. And to open up boundaries and stimulate the exchange of ideas.

PART II
There are numbers of companies doing continuous improvement programs, but few of them are succucefull. Because they didn't grasp a substance of whole things, that is "Learning".
This paper started from the 3M of learning organization, Meaning, Management and Measurement. And suggest that base on these 3M, skilling the activities of solving problem systematicly, experiment of new business approach, learning from the history, learning from others, and distributing knowledge effiently.
In the end, it said that most successful examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time.

PART III

TOPIC: Organizational Learning

T do organizational learning, in order to be a Learning Organization. But how to let your employees learn in organization? Building a sharing environment is the first step, and then make your stuffs comfortable and free when they share their idea. Gradually, your organization will become a learning organizaion.
The most important factor of organizational learning is employees, all magangers can do are support, encourage, and supervise them.

PART IV
This paper used many examples for each part, it makes me understand clearly what learning organization is.
After I read it, I have a conclusion that stratagy is important. The stratagy include the environment, rewarding system, measurment, etc, anything can make your empolyees involve learning further. And these stratagies are made by top supervisors which are usually managers, so the manager level of an organization is important.
In terms of it, this paper was wroten through manager's vision to let them follow. But I still think the employees' vision is also essential to discuss. Maybe the Measurement mentioned in this paper is the way to care about employees. If it can describe measurements like the detail of questionnaire and interview's question more clearly, it will make these two side (manager and stuff) more balanced.

KM7 Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge

PART I

1. Culture is often seen as the key inhibitor of effective knowledge sharing.
2. Potential users said that they liked share system online, but just didn't have time for it.
3. Sharing was not built into the culture enough for people to actually take the time to do it.
4. However strong your commitment and approach to knowledge management, your culture is stronger.
5. Companies that successfully implement knowledge management do not try to change their culture to fit their knowledge management approach.
6. We defined culture as the shared values, beliefs and practice of the people in the organization.
7. The main reason knowledge management progams fail is a lack of a clear connection with a business goal.
8. It is the most important for the style of your effort to match how things get done in your organization.
9. Link these invisible values and visible elements of knowledge management is the behavior of peer and managers.

PART II

Culture is often seen as the key inhibitor of effective knowledge sharing. This paper interview 5 companies to find their organization culture.

Culture of organization can split into two dimensions - visible and invisible. The visible one is like espouse values, philosophy or mission. Even the stories, space and sturcture of one company is also regard as visible culture. And the invisible cultures such as their simple precepts are seen but unspoken background of the company.

Although culture affect knowledge sharing deeply, companies need not to change their culture to fit knowledge approach. Because culture is the foundation of a company, it is stronger as well. Instead, try to make KM approachs to fit your own culture and existent network, in addition, to let your employee get used to them. It will exert knowledge management more successfully.

PART III

TOPIC: Organizational Culture

This paper didn't define the organizational cuture clearly. But after Dr.Pheobe's interpretion, I knew more about this paper.

We can observe Organizational Culture by three things, that are atifacts & behaviors, values and assumptions. These three things is like an onion's skins. From the outside to inside is as the order above. These three can be split into visible and invisible dimension as well.

PART IV

I think there is only one insight in this paper, that is, building KM on solving problems.

And in my opinion, that's OK even your culture need to fit KM approach, if you can really solve problems and get profit from KM. Because, as a whole, there are still number of companies do not have that kind culture which suit to fit KM. In this case, the company need to create a new one for KM approachs.

The conclusions were only made from the companies which have knowledge sharing already. This is the biggest blind part of this paper, the authors didn't considered about other companies which have not had KM yet.

There is another interesting thing, that is, don't let your employees feel you are undergoing KM activities. Make KM approach as a routine of their work, and encourage them to get used to. I agree with it, and I think if the employees know what you required is about KM at first, they will feel overloaded. But I still think it is need to let them know what is KM step by step. It may make them agree more what you did.

KM6 Assessing Knowledge Assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital

PART I

1. Stewart defines intellectual capital as intellectual material - Knowledge, information, intellectual property and experience - that can be put to use to create wealth.
2. IC could be an addendum accompanying with traditional financial reports.
3. The value an organization place on its IC is wholly dependent upon the goals of the organization and the state of the market.
4. A 500-year-old system of accounting must make way for a system of non-financial knowledge flow and intangible assets that use new proxies.
5. The pursuit of measuring IC assets objetively is a noble but difficult one.
6. The measurement examples thus far have been too firm-specific and no set of indicators could hope to be general enough to encompass the needs of a variety of international and industry settings.
7. Pursuing standards at this point might be more harmful given the nascent stage of research development.

part II

This paper reviews six assessments of IC and interprets their strengths and weaknesses. In the content, the author mentioned that many companies agree IC is important, but a few companies really practice it.

According to this paper, IC have different definitions among scholars. But it still has some similar parts, for example, human capital, finance of firm, renewal and development, customer etc. IC assessment the paper listed are trying to measure value of above items, even it is intangible.

In conclusion, IC assesment is almost firm-based, but pursuing standards might be more harmful given the nascent stage of research development. Academic should keep push this field into advance.

PART III

TOPIC: Knowledge assets assesment

This paper consider knowledge assets as intellectual capital. We could notice that there are many ways to assess IC and each of them have strenghs and weakness. It is also firm-based.

PART IV

After reading this paper, I felt something seems to be lost. First, I still cannot practice IC assesment, it is too abstract. Second, IC assesments are usually customization, but the author didn't talk about how to choose or create an appropriate one for each company. Third, because of the firm-based assesment, how to judge the way you used is right and efficient? After all, right or wrong, good or bad, those concept is relative as well as basing on comparing. But firm-base assesments can't compare with each other.

Now that it cannot compare, and the items which be assessed resemble knowledge map. I think, somewhere, knowledge mapping is enough and can be replaced IC assesment with it.

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.

KM log4 Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge

PATR I
1. Konwledge management or knowledge sharing in organizations is based on an understanding of knowledge creation and knowledge transfer.

2. Knowledge requires knowers, so its processes are interteined with human activity and experience.

3. Knowledge is enriched information with insight into its contxt showing how information and knowledge are closely associated and how they used to define each other.

4. Communicating knowledge is primarily a process, but in order to capture and share knowledge conveniently, its representations are often placed into a storage and retrieval system.

5. One reason knowledge is more valuable than data or information is that it is closer to action.

6. In a kownledge management program it is the knowledge artifact, or the thing, that is managed, not knowledge itself.

7. Instead of the constant initiatives to extract knowledge from within the employees to creat new explicit knowledge artifacts, it might be more productive for organizations to invest effort in creating a kownledge culture.

PART II

This article argue that effective knowledge management in many disciplinary contexts must be based on understanding the dynamic nature of knowledge itself.

The author emphasized that knowledge is dynamic, that is, knowledge is always changing with the human experience and learning. Because of dynamic nature, how to manage knowledge is mentioned on this article. Author said that what in a knowledge management prgram is the "Knowledge Artifact".

And then author addressed three problematic aspects of knowledge management:
1. Knowledge originates and resides in the mind
Separating the mind, body and spirit in defining knowledge and recognizing only the intellectual dimention ignores ignores essential aspects of human nature and presents a fractured picture of knowledge.
As far as knowledge management is concerned about the wholeness of human experience.

2. The technological imperative
IT is just a TOOL, not a solution.

3. Knowledge as a social value
This part mentioned about "organizational knowledge".
Knowledge can make profit if knowledge could be distributed within organization. But it can also be a disadvantage to the organization if it is wrong or if it is inhibiting, or if it is not used for the fulfillment of the organisation's mission.

Anyway, this article gave a good opinion that organizations need to manage knowledge both as "object and process".

PART III

Topic: Knowledge Creation

According to this article, Kownledge is the awareness of what one knows through study, reasoning, experience or association, or through various other types of learning. On the other hand, knowledge is a result of a varid set of prcosses. Through those process, knowledge could be created.

PART IV

"Without person involvment in understanding, knowledge has little value". Although this sentence has been overwrited on other articles, it also make great sense. Activities among people create knowledge and distribute knowledge. If there were no people in there, knowledge would become meaningless.

And I very agree the opinion on "Knowledge Artifact". The last article brought up that knowledge cannot be documented but can be passed through social activities. And this article told us precisely that what we documented or what we handle in KM programs were knowledge artifacts and it is dynamic, changing overtime.

KM log3 Knowledge Management: Hype, Hope or help?

PART I

1. Kownledge management, it seems, has two part:

‧there is the management of supporting data and information
‧there is the management of individual with specific abilities.

2. Knowledge is different from data and information, only a person can have and exercise knowledge.

3. Knowledge Management is not so much the management of tangible assets such as data or information, but the active management and support of expertise.

4. Knowledge is not something that can usually be written down, knowledgeable individuals must be encourage to pass their expertise to other through personal contact.

5. For the goal of kownledge worker is not so much to manage kownledge but to solve problems.

PART II

The purpose of this discussion is to look at KM carefully and try to understand what it is, or at least what it could be.
Author used five questions to discuss this topic: KM, hype, hope or help?

Q1: what is knowledge
In this part, author tell different from data, information and knowledge.
He thought Knowledge is not something tangible that we can possess, exchange or lose the way that we can with data or information. And only person can excise it.

Q2: Why are people, especially managers, thinking about knowledge management now?
Every afternoon our corporate knowledge walks out the door and I hope to God they will come back tomorrow. This sentence almost expound why they want to do KM.
And then he started to talk about comminities and IT. He mentioned sharing something is an essential thing although it is hard to creat this kind of culture. And in the IT regard, the author thought the failue of DSS and ES was that people wanted to use them to replace something what can be done only by person.

Q3: What are the enabling technologies for KM?
Store and transmit system. That your workers can find and share something which they want.

Q4: What are the prerequisites for KM?

• Knowledge map
• Knowledge worker

Q5: What are the major challenges for KM?

• culture of sharing
• the treatment of tacit knowledge
• intellecture properties between employees and organization

PART III

Topic: Knowledge and Knowing

This article used "observation (how people use it)" to distinguish the diference between data, information and knowledge. And I use the followed instance to realize these three words.

Before you present something about Tacit Knowledge, you must search a lot of aticles. These articles were composed by words. We can regard these words as DATA. Then I collect these data, and sum up the definition of Tacit Knowledge. This definition is kind of INFORMATION to the others. But for me, I can present it without the summary, so it has turned into KNOWLEDGE. And then I must decide which way to present - by PPT, video or other else - to let the others understand the meaning of Tacit Knowledge, it would be my WISDOM.

Through this instance, we can realize that knowledge is formed from knowing process. Book is not a knowledge until you read it, after this knowing process - reading, something can be internalized become knowledge.

PART IV

Author metioned that knowledge cannot be documented but can be passed through social activities. This opinion is different from last three articles which just mentioned UNDOCUMENTED. And I also agree the opinon about DSS and ES, that is, system can't replace the thing only person can do.

Just as teacher said, the author used words carfully to discuss those questions. But in the conclusion, he told us clearly that Knowledge is not a management but a action. Do something to solve problem. It's realy makes me impressive.

After reading the practical experience of 台積電. I remenber that my friends in StarBucks just felt only StarBucks' coffee is good coffee. They were all assimilated by the company culture, even they had been just hired for 6 months. Consequently, I consider that the culture is not such a difficulte part as the author said. It depends on how deos the culture be distribute in the company.

KM log2

PART I

Artical: What is knowledge management?

1. Concepts are best defined from how people use them.
2. IT-Track KM (management of information) :

• computer and information science
• Knowledge = object

People-Track KM (management of information) :

• philosophy, psychology, sociology......
• Knowledge = Processes

3. Because of their different origins, the two tracks use different language in their dialogues and thus tend to confuse each other when they meet.

4. Anyone can buy a new KM software, but very few have the ability to create sustainable creative organisations.

Part II:

The opinion of IT Track and People Track is come from this article.

IT-Track KM means that the organization focus on computer and information science, and knowledge can be handled by information system. And People-Track KM is that the organization concern about education or training of employees. Learning is the most essencial thing.

The author dislike the notion "KM" personally. He uesed "Knowledge Perspective" or "to be Knowledge Focused" to instead KM. And he seems tended to People Track.

After describing these two tracks, the author started to introduce some companies which take effect on KM.

PART III:

This Week's Topic is : Definition of KM

• In the opinion of Karl, KM includes two tracks.
• In the opinion of Prusak, KM is intergraded by intellectural and practice antecedents.

PART IV:

This week, I learn the development background of KM from Prasuk, and two tracks of KM from Karl. Especially the tracks, it tell difference from two tracks to tell us KM is not only IT but People.

Regarding to the presenter, I very agree her opinion in her conclusion. She said that "you must know what you want to get from knowledge management, and then you can get something from it." As I mentioned in course, companies is too relay on IT to run KM succesfully, especially in Esten countries. They don't really understand the goal of KM, and just set up a lot of system. Then waiting something comes effort automatically. They don't realize that the profit of KM is almost hardly being etimated.

In the conclusion of Prasuk's article, he wanted to see KM would be internalized in organizations, but it is pity that we are still on the origin. We don't make KM into slogan like re-engineer, and we also don't make it into nature. We can't predict what KM will be after 10 years, but we still want to see KM can be naturalized.

KM LOG1: The Nonsense of Knowledge Management

Part I:

Data and information may be managed, and information resource may be managed, but knowledge can never be managed.

When employees leave a company, their knowledge goes with them, no matter how much they've shared.

Can "Tacit knowledge" be captured? The answer, of course, is that it cannot be "captured" - it can only be demonstrated through our expressible knowledge an through our acts.

The conclusion is reached that "knowledge management" is an umbrella term for a variety of organization. Those activities that are not concerned with the management of information are concerned with the management of work practice.

Part II

KM is a papular work in business work, but even in acdamic community, they still use 'knowledge' as a synonym for 'information'. A lot of KM activities are just a kind of Information Management.

Even though, it is not saying that people to contribute effectively the management of organizations is impossible and that sharing knowledge is impossible. It's just to differcult to do it.

Part IV

The opinion of this article made me shock. I have never heard opinions like this.

Before I read this report, I knew KM was a kind of work to make the knowledge of a company can be stored and shared. Especilly sharing, it was the most important activity of KM. But now, I agree that 'Tacit Knowledge' can't be captured, the knowledge will go with retired employees, no matter how much they shared before. I also argee that 'Information' and 'Knowledge' these two words make people confused.

In this condition, KM may be a fad. But I still believe KM should be developed. Because of the economy of knowledge, in this term, we never use ‘information’ to replace ‘knowledge’. It is a new word and this is a new world, the important element of companies (or others) is not only information but knowledge. So we do need a new discipline to deal with this new element.

I believe Wilson didn’t mean to offend the people who advocate managing knowledge. He just wanted to remind us the knowledge couldn’t be handled as like as we handled information before.