Information and Knowledge Management
Introduction
We live in a very fast pace world where the distinction between “third world” country and “first world country” is starting to blur. Information and knowledge have become the latest new currency of the world. Globalization, the effect of having information quickly and accurately has brought its own challenges. The science of information and knowledge management is going to play a vital role within the next few years in all organizations. Social networking, mobility of workers across border lines, economic pressure for innovation, and a social responsibility set the arena for information and knowledge management. Coupled with the fact the information overload is n serious problem that our society is facing; will we be able to handle all the information, and will we take ownership of the social responsibility? The information and knowledge management science needs to be in the forefront to assist business in this challenge. What this in effect means is that as information scientist we need to capture the need of the organization quickly and translate the outcome of the need into viable, valuable commodities. The effect of information and knowledge management may not always be measurable, but the strive should be there to clearly articulate the difference in information and knowledge management and the effect this will have on the organization / society.
Interpretation of the topic
The topic of this assignment is the difference between knowledge and information management and whether there is a clear distinction within the various literatures. I have within researching the topic not only referred to the prescribed articles, but also did a wide search using the internet as base.
Central question
The question for this assignment is whether knowledge management (KM) and information management (IM) is well-articulated within the KM literature.
Within this assignment I will try to argue that because KM and indeed IM is a relative new science, there may seem to be confusion on the overlapping two concepts. I do not agree with the authors completely that there is confusion over KM and IM. This however should not be seen as a negative aspect, but rather a way for the science to grow. Rather I see the field of Km and IM as an ever growing and challenging field, and the well-articulation of the two concepts might not completely be embedded within the various forms of literature but is indeed within the practical aspects the business world.
It seems that knowledge and information is indeed public knowledge, but knowing yourself will help to use the information / knowledge correctly.
The difference and similarities between information and knowledge
Both information and knowledge can be seen as economic assets (Doyle & Du Toit 1998:90). This statement indicates two fundamental factors, one that both exist within the information science arena, and secondly that they play an encapsulating role, meaning the one exists because of the other. It is important to note that some authors may use the terminology interchangeably, but that does not mean that they are not articulated. In order to ascertain whether KM and IM is indeed well –articulated, we need to establish what IM, KM, information and knowledge is.
Information can be referred to as hard coded data that follows procedures and has a universal principle of understanding (Nonaka 1991:96). What this means is that information has a certain set of rules, similar to that of any language that can be desalinized and combined to provide a certain set of other / new information. The moment however that someone provides meaning to information it becomes knowledge. Knowledge is either explicit that can be easily shared or it its tacit, that is very personalized and influence by aspects like experience, attitudes and values. Tacit knowledge also includes aspects like intuition, perspectives (Doyle and Du Toit 1998:91). Both which as “fuzzy” and abstract personalized concepts. Within this lies the fundamental problem, since information becomes knowledge when introduced into each individual mental model. Whereas information is raw data and can be managed by either procedure or a certain set of rules, explicit knowledge is more difficult to manage in the sense that it goes with tacit knowledge. (Note that explicit knowledge can still be managed by documenting it in some form). Tacit knowledge is almost impossible to manage precisely because it is so personal. We are sitting with three very distinctive aspects or concepts: information, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Trying to capture the three separately and manage it, is very difficult, and therefore may be perceived as the same aspect. However it must be stated clear that they are indeed completely different. The confusion does arise since some individuals may talk about information / tacit and explicit knowledge as one aspect, but that however does not mean that it is not already clearly well-articulated. Great advances have been made in the information management science, and will probably ply an even more important role in the future. The question now arises how important is it that IM and KM is well-articulated? My opinion is that from a scientific approach it is vital, from a business approach, the articulation is less important, since it should ideally be focusing in the management (or making money with) knowledge in what ever form it is presented. Tacit knowledge should also include the focus for knowledge management, precisely because it is so personalized and difficult to manage. Great success has been made within both the scientific and business arena around the advancement of tacit knowledge management. KM is critical in any company and plays a very important aspect in any company. Information management is then the management of raw data, whereas KM is the management of not only data but also perceptions, values, culture, collective enterprise memory banks.
How can we make tacit knowledge explicit knowledge?
The relatively daunting task of ensuring tacit knowledge (which is personalized and embedded within a person’s personal model) is transferred to explicit knowledge (a general understanding, transferable form of information) can be achieved by following a specific model (Nanoko 1991:99):
The first step is to have a shared understanding of symbolism and figurative language. For example within each organization there exist inherently a certain language i.e. abbreviations and underlying culture. This step involves some form of facilitation to communicate (either top down – CEO – or collaborative) and formulate the understanding for symbolism and figurative langue. It also includes sharing the values and mission of the company, or formulating it. The value and mission needs to be interpretable for each individual. In other words each person must be able to indicate his / her views on the vision and mission. Great advances have been achieved with technology that enables a group of people to interact, without losing “time away from the table”. Office Communicator, MSN and GoogleTalk are a few of these examples. This technology software allows the user to share information (either in the form of chat rooms or sharing of actual documents) live and online.
The second step is to create metaphors. Metaphors are ways in which information is aligned to individual’s personal models. By making use of metaphors, great synergy can be achieved. The 1990’s have seen synergy as the latest management buzz word, and in fact it definitely has its merits.
The third step is to make analogies. Analogies spell out the various individual’s metaphors that will ultimately lead to a defined model of the various tacit knowledge that will translate into explicit knowledge. It needs to be made clear that the process for making tacit knowledge explicit can rarely be driven in a four step process but rather a circular movement. The encouragement of frequent dialogue and understanding the common cognitive ground is what makes great companies excel in their field. Another important enabler of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is the free access to information.
Free access to information and knowledge
With the start of open source in the late 1970’s in America, the strive has always been that information and indeed knowledge should be free and easily available. Great strides have been made both internationally and locally to ensure that open source, or free software codes, be available for anybody that would need it. The late 1980’s have seen huge corporations like Microsoft and the like to try and capture the technology market. This however has changed dramatically. Open source is now available on the internet, and a basic search on any search engine (like Google or Yahoo) will bring a users millions of pages related to open source codes. The same goes for the availability of information and then in tern knowledge. Search engines like Google have revolutionized our worlds unimaginable. The arguments for information overload is indeed a reality, but seemingly integrated within society with relative ease. Searching for IM and KM on any search engine will bring about thousands of interpretations. The reality is that whether the information is true or not is debatable. The same goes for any other science of any other format. For example, typing in how to perform a certain operations will bring about thousands of variables, this does not mean that the operation is not well articulated, just that various interpretations exist, and any person must make use of their own judgment to ascertain if the information and then knowledge is relevant to the current situation.
What works now, might not work in the future. What search engines does for us as society is keeping an electronic “library” of information so vast, that was not available with previous generations, never before on earths history have we had such a diverse mixture of information and knowledge stored. Information and knowledge is now truly freely available with the assumptions that a person has got access to the information tools (like PC’s, cell phones, etc.).
Knowledge as a commodity
Any organization deals with knowledge in some format. Trying to convert knowledge as a commodity means capturing valuable knowledge (tacit) that works, which in effect means generating knowledge that ultimately improve commercial performance (Demarest 1997:374). Improving commercial performance means that the end product – whether it is a physical product / idea / service – is delivered faster and with greater capacity than what before was used. Before in this instance refers to before the tacit knowledge was shared. Any organization operates within a specific set of arena that is influenced by competitors. The speed of which knowledge is shared and spread throughout the organization is vital. Most big top 100 performing companies within South Africa have normally a clear mission and vision statement. The knowledge management factor should ideally talk to the mission and vision of the company.
It is difficult to manage since tacit knowledge is influenced by personal experience, but once again within this statement may lay an even better commodity for knowledge. It is precisely because of each individuals tacit knowledge influence that a product / idea / service can be unique offered to its clients. The aim of treating knowledge as a commodity is ensuring that the flow of the knowledge is coordinated. The end goal is then to produce effective performance defined by the competitive and financial context (Demarest 1997:375).
Without knowledge most companies will not survive. As a society we are indeed starting to move away from the information age towards the knowledge age. The effects of globalization are almost ensuring that the new knowledge age incorporates a social creative intelligence – in other words a age where tacit knowledge plays a vital role within any organization.
Commercial knowledge is the developing and managing of the network of information that is distributed throughout the firm and in effect create marketplace performances (Demarest 1997:376).
The importance of the facilitation process within the creation of a knowledge management firm, lies within asking the right type of questions, that will engage the various members of the organization to interact in such a way that they engage in meaningful conversations. Aspects such as innovation, cash flow cycles, human assets, sustainability and knowledge storage are important.
Knowledge encapsulates the interpretation if information. The media is a prime example of this.
Knowledge management flows out of information management
From the statements above we can assume that knowledge management flows out of information management, and the two concepts are indeed intertwined in various aspects. The one can not function without the other. Proper information management (i.e. the management of data / process / documents) will ensure that knowledge management activities can take place. The knowledge worker – which these days seems to be every person within an organization – needs to collaborate, network and brainstorm in order to share there tacit knowledge with one another (Doyle & Du Toit 1998:92).
The influence of information overload
In today’s South African society we are directly influenced by the so called “information age”. Our inherent heritage has provided us with a unique approach to information and its influence on our society at large. The average South African might not have a PC that is connected to the internet, but the bulk of South African have mobile phones, which do provide us with direct access to information. The monopolistic provider mentality has also been disbanded, with the allocation of telecommunication rights to other providers, this will in turn influence they way South Africans receive information. Within this statement also lies the assumption that the average person is overloaded with information. Not just from technology but also from other sources (i.e. advertisements, story telling, and community work). This information is then translated into knowledge that is personal (influenced by values and believe systems). It is because of our information overload that information, and indeed knowledge, is becoming a commodity in its own right.
What is interesting to note is that information is not always used for the betterment of the society at large. This can be seen in the recent survey disclosure by the Sunday Times news paper article entitled: what South Africans Search for (Sunday time April 12:9); “The top three searches on the Google search engine were: Facebook, Cape Town and Games in 2008”. This proofs that the average south African that have access to the Google search engine, search for information more around amusement, than it does for the betterment of the individual and indeed the society at large. It seems that at this stage in our history we are influenced by information overload (that in turn create tacit and explicit knowledge) and the way we handle it is by choosing not to simply search for relevant information. In 2008 the global economic crisis was at its pinnacle, and the yet the information searched on the internet was not at all related to anything economical, but rather personal amusement. It must also be mentioned that since information is so readily available the validity of the information is not checked, and that in turn will influence the knowledge level.
The importance of common cognitive ground
The statement of Bouthillier and Shearer (2002) around IM and KM well-articulation does provide a valid point around the importance of having a common cognitive ground within the scientific community, and indeed within any organization. The sharing of knowledge can either be done in a café style type of conversation, or it can at least be transferred in a well coordinated of activity style (Grant 1997: 451). KM is the integration of the common cognitive ground into a systematic approach to identify, manage and share information assets (Akhavan et al 2006:98). KM creates a new type of working environment where knowledge (and indeed tacit knowledge) is easily shared together with experience, and so enables the flow of information and knowledge to the right people at the right time. It is important to note that Knowledge is seen as the capacity for action. Cognitive ground also refers to the understanding of a common language that is embedded within the organization. The symbolism and figurative language sharing understanding is one such example (Nonaka 1991:98).
What constitute KM ACTIVITIES?
The activities are according to Breen et al:
• “Knowledge and information sharing
• Identification and exploitation of intellectual assets
• Developing a learning organization
• Skills training and development
• Improved information sharing with clients and partners
• Integration all information and knowledge sources
• Promotion of expertise to clients and potential clients.”
The organization is always on the look out to improve its activities in order to grow financially. IM and KM assist the company by ensuring the workers express the inexpressible. The clear division on what constitute KM activities is an indication that KM is indeed defined, Aldus not always by the scientific community in general. This does not deter the importance of both IM and KM activities. What is important to also note is that each organization needs around IM and KM activities is unique, and a set model might not be appropriate on how to handle IM and KM activities. A simplified model for knowledge economics is proposed by completing the following:
The construction of knowledge and choosing the container for that knowledge, disseminating the knowledge by means of human process and technical infrastructure and to ultimately use the knowledge for commercial value (for the end customer (Demarest 1997:92)
How do we do KM?
KM as we have seen throughout this assignment is not tangible, there are however according to Akhavan et al certain key success factors of implementing KM. Aspects like culture, strategy, systems, effective and systematic process measures, knowledge strategies, training programs, CEO support, network of experts, knowledge sharing and knowledge storage, audits and architecture. KM then constitutes the facilitation of the flow of information, and can be done either formal or informal. Taken into account that a persons own assumptions will have an influence of KM activities.
Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization and quickly embody it in new technology and products (Nonaka 19991: 97). It is an very important activity within any organization (or at least should be). Each knowledge worker should then be in effect treated as entrepreneurs. This is where other social sciences should be incorporated into information and knowledge management. Taking care of your entrepreneurs within your company may constitute a radical move away from the “old” model of hierarchy structures within organizations, but rather a fluid, team based organization within excellent infrastructure that can easily and without effort spread information and knowledge.
KM therefore can either reside as a separate department within the organization, or it can be spread over a few workers within the organization. One thing is clear the KM and IM policies and procedures will need to be embedded within the companies strategy.
Successful KM activities can also include the following steps; define the business goals that KM systems will add. This includes doing an overview study or GAP analysis of all the KM activities within the organization. The next phase is to complete a knowledge audit that will identify any duplications, gaps and overlaps. A visual map is then created that describe the various units of knowledge and the relationship between them. The KM strategy is then formulated, and the building or acquiring of appropriate tool for aspects like capturing, analyzing, categorizing and distribution of knowledge takes place. Period reevaluation of the polices and procedures needs to take place (Call 2005: 20).
Example of KM and IM practices from own experience
Within the organization that I am working in, I have seen the implementation of KM very successfully. This was only possible since IM and KM was deliberately separated. Having interviewed the Chief Information Officer around the question whether KM and IM activities are well-articulated it was interesting to find that it is indeed separated, and only because the companies need was of such a nature that a separation been done between systems, technology, process flows and raw statistical data (IM) versus knowledge on and within the business (IM).
A MIS (management information services) team was set up within the organization to address the need around the management of initial information, and later knowledge. An information audit was conducted to determine a visual map around what was currently available for all users, and subsequent policies and procedures were set in place to ensure that the documentation of the date and process was done in conjunction with the learning and development department. When this was concluded a executive drive was completed to ensure that KM activities were centralized and managened within the MIS team. The dedicated five member team, after completing SWOT analysis, GAP analysis, interviews and questionnaires found that together with human resource the company lost valuable information every time a key individual left the company. Nowhere was the information stored on how to deal with clients, and how “best case scenarios” were offered to potential clients. The business unit proceeded to re-engineer the business process on how it captures information, how tacit knowledge becomes explicit knowledge and a few creative solutions was found:
• The creation of an internal “wikipedia” system ensures that when a problem, from what ever nature is dealt with employees participate in a “live” debate on what the best possible solution was for the problem. This ensures that the information is kept up to date and quality assured by the MIS team.
• Statistical vital data is communicated on a regular basis (once a day) around investor’s information and how the company’s strategy is influenced by this.
• Publication around the company (media news) is shared across the organization to ensure uniformity
• Debate sessions around problematic terminology and culture are open to anybody within the organization.
What became clear to me when I completed the interview was that each organization will have clear needs around information and knowledge management and a “one size fits all” academic approach simply will not cut it within the every day business. It certainly guides the business on where to find what, but can not prescribe to it clear well-articulated answers and differences between information and knowledge management, since it is such a dynamic field of study.
Conclusion
Within this assignment I have tried to explain that IM and KM may not be clearly articulated within the various literatures available, but in practice the difference is already clear from a business perspective. More research is certainly needed within the science of information and knowledge management. The core competencies described for the information and knowledge worker needs to be adjusted continuously. The effect of globalization and information readiness will influence how we deal with IM and KM.
We live in a very fast pace world where the distinction between “third world” country and “first world country” is starting to blur. Information and knowledge have become the latest new currency of the world. Globalization, the effect of having information quickly and accurately has brought its own challenges. The science of information and knowledge management is going to play a vital role within the next few years in all organizations. Social networking, mobility of workers across border lines, economic pressure for innovation, and a social responsibility set the arena for information and knowledge management. Coupled with the fact the information overload is n serious problem that our society is facing; will we be able to handle all the information, and will we take ownership of the social responsibility? The information and knowledge management science needs to be in the forefront to assist business in this challenge. What this in effect means is that as information scientist we need to capture the need of the organization quickly and translate the outcome of the need into viable, valuable commodities. The effect of information and knowledge management may not always be measurable, but the strive should be there to clearly articulate the difference in information and knowledge management and the effect this will have on the organization / society.
Interpretation of the topic
The topic of this assignment is the difference between knowledge and information management and whether there is a clear distinction within the various literatures. I have within researching the topic not only referred to the prescribed articles, but also did a wide search using the internet as base.
Central question
The question for this assignment is whether knowledge management (KM) and information management (IM) is well-articulated within the KM literature.
Within this assignment I will try to argue that because KM and indeed IM is a relative new science, there may seem to be confusion on the overlapping two concepts. I do not agree with the authors completely that there is confusion over KM and IM. This however should not be seen as a negative aspect, but rather a way for the science to grow. Rather I see the field of Km and IM as an ever growing and challenging field, and the well-articulation of the two concepts might not completely be embedded within the various forms of literature but is indeed within the practical aspects the business world.
It seems that knowledge and information is indeed public knowledge, but knowing yourself will help to use the information / knowledge correctly.
The difference and similarities between information and knowledge
Both information and knowledge can be seen as economic assets (Doyle & Du Toit 1998:90). This statement indicates two fundamental factors, one that both exist within the information science arena, and secondly that they play an encapsulating role, meaning the one exists because of the other. It is important to note that some authors may use the terminology interchangeably, but that does not mean that they are not articulated. In order to ascertain whether KM and IM is indeed well –articulated, we need to establish what IM, KM, information and knowledge is.
Information can be referred to as hard coded data that follows procedures and has a universal principle of understanding (Nonaka 1991:96). What this means is that information has a certain set of rules, similar to that of any language that can be desalinized and combined to provide a certain set of other / new information. The moment however that someone provides meaning to information it becomes knowledge. Knowledge is either explicit that can be easily shared or it its tacit, that is very personalized and influence by aspects like experience, attitudes and values. Tacit knowledge also includes aspects like intuition, perspectives (Doyle and Du Toit 1998:91). Both which as “fuzzy” and abstract personalized concepts. Within this lies the fundamental problem, since information becomes knowledge when introduced into each individual mental model. Whereas information is raw data and can be managed by either procedure or a certain set of rules, explicit knowledge is more difficult to manage in the sense that it goes with tacit knowledge. (Note that explicit knowledge can still be managed by documenting it in some form). Tacit knowledge is almost impossible to manage precisely because it is so personal. We are sitting with three very distinctive aspects or concepts: information, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Trying to capture the three separately and manage it, is very difficult, and therefore may be perceived as the same aspect. However it must be stated clear that they are indeed completely different. The confusion does arise since some individuals may talk about information / tacit and explicit knowledge as one aspect, but that however does not mean that it is not already clearly well-articulated. Great advances have been made in the information management science, and will probably ply an even more important role in the future. The question now arises how important is it that IM and KM is well-articulated? My opinion is that from a scientific approach it is vital, from a business approach, the articulation is less important, since it should ideally be focusing in the management (or making money with) knowledge in what ever form it is presented. Tacit knowledge should also include the focus for knowledge management, precisely because it is so personalized and difficult to manage. Great success has been made within both the scientific and business arena around the advancement of tacit knowledge management. KM is critical in any company and plays a very important aspect in any company. Information management is then the management of raw data, whereas KM is the management of not only data but also perceptions, values, culture, collective enterprise memory banks.
How can we make tacit knowledge explicit knowledge?
The relatively daunting task of ensuring tacit knowledge (which is personalized and embedded within a person’s personal model) is transferred to explicit knowledge (a general understanding, transferable form of information) can be achieved by following a specific model (Nanoko 1991:99):
The first step is to have a shared understanding of symbolism and figurative language. For example within each organization there exist inherently a certain language i.e. abbreviations and underlying culture. This step involves some form of facilitation to communicate (either top down – CEO – or collaborative) and formulate the understanding for symbolism and figurative langue. It also includes sharing the values and mission of the company, or formulating it. The value and mission needs to be interpretable for each individual. In other words each person must be able to indicate his / her views on the vision and mission. Great advances have been achieved with technology that enables a group of people to interact, without losing “time away from the table”. Office Communicator, MSN and GoogleTalk are a few of these examples. This technology software allows the user to share information (either in the form of chat rooms or sharing of actual documents) live and online.
The second step is to create metaphors. Metaphors are ways in which information is aligned to individual’s personal models. By making use of metaphors, great synergy can be achieved. The 1990’s have seen synergy as the latest management buzz word, and in fact it definitely has its merits.
The third step is to make analogies. Analogies spell out the various individual’s metaphors that will ultimately lead to a defined model of the various tacit knowledge that will translate into explicit knowledge. It needs to be made clear that the process for making tacit knowledge explicit can rarely be driven in a four step process but rather a circular movement. The encouragement of frequent dialogue and understanding the common cognitive ground is what makes great companies excel in their field. Another important enabler of transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is the free access to information.
Free access to information and knowledge
With the start of open source in the late 1970’s in America, the strive has always been that information and indeed knowledge should be free and easily available. Great strides have been made both internationally and locally to ensure that open source, or free software codes, be available for anybody that would need it. The late 1980’s have seen huge corporations like Microsoft and the like to try and capture the technology market. This however has changed dramatically. Open source is now available on the internet, and a basic search on any search engine (like Google or Yahoo) will bring a users millions of pages related to open source codes. The same goes for the availability of information and then in tern knowledge. Search engines like Google have revolutionized our worlds unimaginable. The arguments for information overload is indeed a reality, but seemingly integrated within society with relative ease. Searching for IM and KM on any search engine will bring about thousands of interpretations. The reality is that whether the information is true or not is debatable. The same goes for any other science of any other format. For example, typing in how to perform a certain operations will bring about thousands of variables, this does not mean that the operation is not well articulated, just that various interpretations exist, and any person must make use of their own judgment to ascertain if the information and then knowledge is relevant to the current situation.
What works now, might not work in the future. What search engines does for us as society is keeping an electronic “library” of information so vast, that was not available with previous generations, never before on earths history have we had such a diverse mixture of information and knowledge stored. Information and knowledge is now truly freely available with the assumptions that a person has got access to the information tools (like PC’s, cell phones, etc.).
Knowledge as a commodity
Any organization deals with knowledge in some format. Trying to convert knowledge as a commodity means capturing valuable knowledge (tacit) that works, which in effect means generating knowledge that ultimately improve commercial performance (Demarest 1997:374). Improving commercial performance means that the end product – whether it is a physical product / idea / service – is delivered faster and with greater capacity than what before was used. Before in this instance refers to before the tacit knowledge was shared. Any organization operates within a specific set of arena that is influenced by competitors. The speed of which knowledge is shared and spread throughout the organization is vital. Most big top 100 performing companies within South Africa have normally a clear mission and vision statement. The knowledge management factor should ideally talk to the mission and vision of the company.
It is difficult to manage since tacit knowledge is influenced by personal experience, but once again within this statement may lay an even better commodity for knowledge. It is precisely because of each individuals tacit knowledge influence that a product / idea / service can be unique offered to its clients. The aim of treating knowledge as a commodity is ensuring that the flow of the knowledge is coordinated. The end goal is then to produce effective performance defined by the competitive and financial context (Demarest 1997:375).
Without knowledge most companies will not survive. As a society we are indeed starting to move away from the information age towards the knowledge age. The effects of globalization are almost ensuring that the new knowledge age incorporates a social creative intelligence – in other words a age where tacit knowledge plays a vital role within any organization.
Commercial knowledge is the developing and managing of the network of information that is distributed throughout the firm and in effect create marketplace performances (Demarest 1997:376).
The importance of the facilitation process within the creation of a knowledge management firm, lies within asking the right type of questions, that will engage the various members of the organization to interact in such a way that they engage in meaningful conversations. Aspects such as innovation, cash flow cycles, human assets, sustainability and knowledge storage are important.
Knowledge encapsulates the interpretation if information. The media is a prime example of this.
Knowledge management flows out of information management
From the statements above we can assume that knowledge management flows out of information management, and the two concepts are indeed intertwined in various aspects. The one can not function without the other. Proper information management (i.e. the management of data / process / documents) will ensure that knowledge management activities can take place. The knowledge worker – which these days seems to be every person within an organization – needs to collaborate, network and brainstorm in order to share there tacit knowledge with one another (Doyle & Du Toit 1998:92).
The influence of information overload
In today’s South African society we are directly influenced by the so called “information age”. Our inherent heritage has provided us with a unique approach to information and its influence on our society at large. The average South African might not have a PC that is connected to the internet, but the bulk of South African have mobile phones, which do provide us with direct access to information. The monopolistic provider mentality has also been disbanded, with the allocation of telecommunication rights to other providers, this will in turn influence they way South Africans receive information. Within this statement also lies the assumption that the average person is overloaded with information. Not just from technology but also from other sources (i.e. advertisements, story telling, and community work). This information is then translated into knowledge that is personal (influenced by values and believe systems). It is because of our information overload that information, and indeed knowledge, is becoming a commodity in its own right.
What is interesting to note is that information is not always used for the betterment of the society at large. This can be seen in the recent survey disclosure by the Sunday Times news paper article entitled: what South Africans Search for (Sunday time April 12:9); “The top three searches on the Google search engine were: Facebook, Cape Town and Games in 2008”. This proofs that the average south African that have access to the Google search engine, search for information more around amusement, than it does for the betterment of the individual and indeed the society at large. It seems that at this stage in our history we are influenced by information overload (that in turn create tacit and explicit knowledge) and the way we handle it is by choosing not to simply search for relevant information. In 2008 the global economic crisis was at its pinnacle, and the yet the information searched on the internet was not at all related to anything economical, but rather personal amusement. It must also be mentioned that since information is so readily available the validity of the information is not checked, and that in turn will influence the knowledge level.
The importance of common cognitive ground
The statement of Bouthillier and Shearer (2002) around IM and KM well-articulation does provide a valid point around the importance of having a common cognitive ground within the scientific community, and indeed within any organization. The sharing of knowledge can either be done in a café style type of conversation, or it can at least be transferred in a well coordinated of activity style (Grant 1997: 451). KM is the integration of the common cognitive ground into a systematic approach to identify, manage and share information assets (Akhavan et al 2006:98). KM creates a new type of working environment where knowledge (and indeed tacit knowledge) is easily shared together with experience, and so enables the flow of information and knowledge to the right people at the right time. It is important to note that Knowledge is seen as the capacity for action. Cognitive ground also refers to the understanding of a common language that is embedded within the organization. The symbolism and figurative language sharing understanding is one such example (Nonaka 1991:98).
What constitute KM ACTIVITIES?
The activities are according to Breen et al:
• “Knowledge and information sharing
• Identification and exploitation of intellectual assets
• Developing a learning organization
• Skills training and development
• Improved information sharing with clients and partners
• Integration all information and knowledge sources
• Promotion of expertise to clients and potential clients.”
The organization is always on the look out to improve its activities in order to grow financially. IM and KM assist the company by ensuring the workers express the inexpressible. The clear division on what constitute KM activities is an indication that KM is indeed defined, Aldus not always by the scientific community in general. This does not deter the importance of both IM and KM activities. What is important to also note is that each organization needs around IM and KM activities is unique, and a set model might not be appropriate on how to handle IM and KM activities. A simplified model for knowledge economics is proposed by completing the following:
The construction of knowledge and choosing the container for that knowledge, disseminating the knowledge by means of human process and technical infrastructure and to ultimately use the knowledge for commercial value (for the end customer (Demarest 1997:92)
How do we do KM?
KM as we have seen throughout this assignment is not tangible, there are however according to Akhavan et al certain key success factors of implementing KM. Aspects like culture, strategy, systems, effective and systematic process measures, knowledge strategies, training programs, CEO support, network of experts, knowledge sharing and knowledge storage, audits and architecture. KM then constitutes the facilitation of the flow of information, and can be done either formal or informal. Taken into account that a persons own assumptions will have an influence of KM activities.
Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organization and quickly embody it in new technology and products (Nonaka 19991: 97). It is an very important activity within any organization (or at least should be). Each knowledge worker should then be in effect treated as entrepreneurs. This is where other social sciences should be incorporated into information and knowledge management. Taking care of your entrepreneurs within your company may constitute a radical move away from the “old” model of hierarchy structures within organizations, but rather a fluid, team based organization within excellent infrastructure that can easily and without effort spread information and knowledge.
KM therefore can either reside as a separate department within the organization, or it can be spread over a few workers within the organization. One thing is clear the KM and IM policies and procedures will need to be embedded within the companies strategy.
Successful KM activities can also include the following steps; define the business goals that KM systems will add. This includes doing an overview study or GAP analysis of all the KM activities within the organization. The next phase is to complete a knowledge audit that will identify any duplications, gaps and overlaps. A visual map is then created that describe the various units of knowledge and the relationship between them. The KM strategy is then formulated, and the building or acquiring of appropriate tool for aspects like capturing, analyzing, categorizing and distribution of knowledge takes place. Period reevaluation of the polices and procedures needs to take place (Call 2005: 20).
Example of KM and IM practices from own experience
Within the organization that I am working in, I have seen the implementation of KM very successfully. This was only possible since IM and KM was deliberately separated. Having interviewed the Chief Information Officer around the question whether KM and IM activities are well-articulated it was interesting to find that it is indeed separated, and only because the companies need was of such a nature that a separation been done between systems, technology, process flows and raw statistical data (IM) versus knowledge on and within the business (IM).
A MIS (management information services) team was set up within the organization to address the need around the management of initial information, and later knowledge. An information audit was conducted to determine a visual map around what was currently available for all users, and subsequent policies and procedures were set in place to ensure that the documentation of the date and process was done in conjunction with the learning and development department. When this was concluded a executive drive was completed to ensure that KM activities were centralized and managened within the MIS team. The dedicated five member team, after completing SWOT analysis, GAP analysis, interviews and questionnaires found that together with human resource the company lost valuable information every time a key individual left the company. Nowhere was the information stored on how to deal with clients, and how “best case scenarios” were offered to potential clients. The business unit proceeded to re-engineer the business process on how it captures information, how tacit knowledge becomes explicit knowledge and a few creative solutions was found:
• The creation of an internal “wikipedia” system ensures that when a problem, from what ever nature is dealt with employees participate in a “live” debate on what the best possible solution was for the problem. This ensures that the information is kept up to date and quality assured by the MIS team.
• Statistical vital data is communicated on a regular basis (once a day) around investor’s information and how the company’s strategy is influenced by this.
• Publication around the company (media news) is shared across the organization to ensure uniformity
• Debate sessions around problematic terminology and culture are open to anybody within the organization.
What became clear to me when I completed the interview was that each organization will have clear needs around information and knowledge management and a “one size fits all” academic approach simply will not cut it within the every day business. It certainly guides the business on where to find what, but can not prescribe to it clear well-articulated answers and differences between information and knowledge management, since it is such a dynamic field of study.
Conclusion
Within this assignment I have tried to explain that IM and KM may not be clearly articulated within the various literatures available, but in practice the difference is already clear from a business perspective. More research is certainly needed within the science of information and knowledge management. The core competencies described for the information and knowledge worker needs to be adjusted continuously. The effect of globalization and information readiness will influence how we deal with IM and KM.
Comments