|
Knowledge Management for
Organisational White Waters
Many extant conceptions
of knowledge management systems are constrained by their overly
rational, static and acontextual views of knowledge. The notion of a
knowledge ecology may facilitate development of synergy between the data
and information processing capacity of information technologies and
the innovative and creative capacity of human beings. This article
will attempt to develop an understanding of such issues to advance the
current thinking from knowledge management based on predictive models to
those better geared to organisational white-waters that demand 'anticipation of
surprise.'
'Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody -
either by becoming grounds for actions, or by making an individual (or an
institution) capable of different or more effective action.'
Peter F. Drucker in 'The New Realities'1
Extant
conceptions of Knowledge Management systems
Increased realisation of
knowledge as the core competence coupled with recent advances in
information technology such as intranets and the World Wide Web, has
heightened interest in the topic of knowledge management. Most such
technology-based conceptualisations have been primarily based however,
upon heuristics embedded in procedure manuals, mathematical models or
programmed logic that arguably, capture the preferred solutions to the
given repertoire of organisation's problems.
Technology gurus as well as
hardware and software vendors have been offering 'out-of-box solutions'
that are expected to enable knowledge management. Such off-the-shelf
solutions are expected to offer means for storing best practices devised
by human experts in information databases. These databases in turn, may
later be used for crunching out pre-determined solutions based on
pre-defined parameters. The convergent and consensus building emphasis of
such systems may be adequate for stable and predictable sbusiness
environments. However, such systems, based primarily on rules and
procedures embedded in technology, seem misaligned with a dynamically
changing business environment.
Organisational
white-waters of the new world of Business
The new organisational
world of permanent white-waters demands precognition and adaptation in
contrast to the traditional emphasis on optimisation based on prediction. It
is a world in which organisational theories of business need to
be continuously re-examined for their alignment with the dynamically
changing external reality. This new world of business is characterised
by 're-everything' involving continuous redefinition of organisational goals, purposes,
and the tried and trusted ways in which things have been done. The radical
and discontinuous change of the new business environment overwhelms
the traditional organisational response of predicting and reacting based
on pre-programmed heuristics. Instead, it demands what may be
characterised as 'anticipation of surprise.' The following observation by Steve Kerr,
the Chief Learning Officer of one of the largest US multinationals, would
perhaps provide some appreciation of this viewpoint:
'The future is moving so quickly
that you can't anticipate it...We have put a tremendous emphasis on quick
response instead of planning. We will continue to be surprised, but we
won't be surprised that we are surprised. We will anticipate the
surprise.'2
How can one move beyond the current Knowledge Management systems
based primarily on predictive models to systems that can facilitate
anticipation of surprise?
Toward loose-tight
Knowledge Management systems
One possible solution may
involve developing what I term as loose-tight knowledge management
systems. These systems do not reject the notion of 'best practices' per se
but consider the continuous construction and reconstruction of such
practices as a live process. Such systems are loose in the sense that they
allow for continuous re-examination of the assumptions underlying best
practices and reinterpretation of this information. Such systems are tight
in the sense that they also allow for efficiencies based on propagation
and dissemination of the best practices.
Such loose-tight knowledge
management systems would need to provide not only for identification and
dissemination of best practices, but also for continuous re-examination of
such practices. Specifically, they would need to also provide the reverse
processes that continuously examine the best practices for their
relevance, given the changing assumptions about the business environment.
Such systems would need to contain both learning and unlearning processes.
These simultaneous processes are needed for assuring the
efficiency-oriented optimisation based on the current best practices while
ensuring that such practices are continuously re-examined for their
relevance.
Within such systems, the best practices would represent
optimisations based on past experience, but they would not serve as de
facto benchmarks for guiding the future course of action. The primary
purpose of such best practices would be considered as sharing and
communication of information.
In this view, the best practices
stored in knowledgebases would not be viewed as a set of instructions to
be followed without questioning. Rather they would serve as ideological
devices to define potential, but not exclusive courses of action.
The
traditional technology-oriented knowledge management solutions have
adequately served the predictable world paradigm based on pre-defined
models and assumptions. The new era of permanent organisational
white-waters however, requires a knowledge ecology that can facilitate the
development and sustenance of the loose-tight knowledge management systems
described above.
Knowledge ecology for the era of discontinuous
change
Some of the key premises underlying the notion of a knowledge
ecology may be explained by comparisons to the natural ecosystems in the
table opposite.
The traditional view of knowledge management primarily focuses on
information, whereas the knowledge ecology adds the context, synergy and
trust necessary for translating such information into actionable
knowledge.
From information to actionable knowledge
Knowledge
management in the past has treated knowledge in terms of prepackaged or
'taken-for-granted' interpretations of information. However, this static
and acontextual knowledge works against the generation of multiple and
contradictory viewpoints that are necessary for meeting the challenge
posed by unpredictable environments. As illustrated by case studies of
companies that have relied on this concept of knowledge, it may even
hamper its learning and adaptive capabilities. The unpredictable
environment of the new world of business imposes the need for variety and
complexity of the interpretations of information. Such interpretations are
necessary for deciphering the multiple world views of the uncertain
future.
A
more proactive involvement of human imagination and creativity can perhaps
facilitate greater internal diversity [of the organisation] that can match
the variety and complexity of the unpredictable environment. The active
'meaning-making' role of human actors thus occupies a prominent role in
the subjective and constructive knowledge processes of the knowledge
ecology.
Knowledge ecology primarily focuses on social networks of
individuals in contrast to the overly technological emphasis of
traditional knowledge management systems on computers and
information technology networks
In a knowledge ecology
environment impacted by sudden and pervasive change, mode of
survival is adaptation [or more accurately 'anticipation of
surprise'] instead of optimisation
Knowledge ecology is made
up of knowledge nodes and knowledge exchanges or knowledge flows. In
the knowledge ecology the basis for cooperation and survival is
differentiation and similarity between the knowledge nodes. Highly
differentiated knowledge nodes can collaborate to accomplish
specific actions and may dissolve thereafter. However, collaboration
between such nodes would require that they be able to 'relate' to
one another under an over-arching mission or theme
Within a
knowledge ecology, focus on people does not only imply understanding
of knowledge exchanges and relationships based on such exchanges. It
also implies understanding of how such knowledge influences action
or potential for action based on such exchanges
Just as
natural ecologies thrive based on species diversity, knowledge
ecology thrives on diversity of knowledge. Such diversity rests on
cooperative competition: the various knowledge nodes collaborate as
well as compete, based on their differentiating
characteristics
Knowledge ecology treats knowledge creation
as a dynamic evolutionary process in which knowledge gets created
and recreated in various contexts and at various points of
time |
The constructive and
dynamic nature of knowledge
Information residing in a company's
knowledge base, procedures, routines and archives (in the form of
pixels, bits or symbols) needs to be distinguished from the constructive
and dynamic view of knowledge. West Churchman, in his classic treatise
The Design of Inquiring Systems noted that: 'To conceive of knowledge
as a collection of information seems to rob the concept of all of
its life... Knowledge resides in the user and not in the collection.' 3
On a related note, Ikujiro Nonaka, the first Professor of Knowledge4
emphasised that only human beings can take the central role in knowledge
creation. He asserted that computers are merely tools, however great their
information-processing capabilities may be. More recently, Karl Erik
Sveiby5 observed that the confusion between `knowledge' and `information'
has caused managers to sink billions of dollars into technology ventures
that have yielded marginal results. He asserts that business managers need
to realise that unlike information, knowledge is embedded in people, and
knowledge creation occurs in the process of social interaction.
Given the
increasingly unpredictable nature of the business environment, there seems
to be an imperative need for consideration of the subjective human
sense-making interpretations. Such human sense-making processes can
provide the multiple, diverse and contradictory interpretations based on
information in computer databases. The role of such processes seems
relevant in ensuring that the organisation is doing the right thing, in
contrast to the optimisation based predictive models that focus on doing
things right. As observed twenty years ago by Chris Argyris6, such
processes would facilitate generative learning that emphasises continuous
experimentation and feedback in an ongoing examination of the way
organisations go about defining and solving problems. He had argued that
the massive technology of various information and control systems is
designed for single loop learning. Unfortunately, trouble arises when the
technology is not effective and when the underlying objectives and
policies must be questioned. Left unquestioned and unexamined, the
company's theories of business [embedded in the organisational information
and control systems] move out of alignment with the changing reality of
the business environment.
The above argument suggests that
the role of human sense making processes in knowledge management is
crucial for sustaining business effectiveness. At least it seems relevant
until the technological systems can become capable of generating not only
convergent and consensus-oriented solutions, but also diverse
interpretations of information based on previously unpredicted contexts
and unforeseen assumptions.
What are the implications for
companies and their employees given the changing business environment that
demands an increasingly faster cycle of new knowledge creation?
Toward
communities of knowledge 'intrapreneurs'
With the redefinition of the
employment contract in U.S. and other worldwide organisations, we are
observing a shift to the 'intrapreneurship' mode of knowledge work.
Specifically, regardless of the industry or organisation an individual is
working in, he or she is expected to act more and more as an internal
entrepreneur, or 'intrapreneur'. Given the increasing relevance of the
knowledge value chain in the organisational business processes, one can
anticipate that most individuals in knowledge-based organisations would be
acting as knowledge intrapreneurs. The term 'knowledge intrapreneur' seems
more appropriate in this context than 'knowledge worker' given the
changing nature of organisations and work roles.
The emerging work roles
would exploit the newly enriched environment by opening the information base
of the organisation to members at every level, assuring that each has
the knowledge, skills and authority to engage with the
information productively. These roles are consistent with Shoshana
Zuboff's7 observation that efficient operations in the 'informated' workplace
require a more equitable distribution of knowledge and authority. They are
also consistent with the contextual, constructive, dynamic, and
action-oriented view of knowledge creation proposed in this article. The
new work roles demand that every worker act to an extent as a manager as
well as an entrepreneur in the organisational knowledge-creation process.
Such knowledge 'intrapreneurs' are expected to contribute to the
organisational knowledge-creation processes based on developing knowledge
relationships and knowledge exchanges within and outside the formal
boundaries of the organisation. The emerging virtual communities of
practice and virtual events are harbingers of this vision.
Conclusions
One can anticipate that the new
paradigm of knowledge creation and dissemination would have implications
for most types of knowledge work with which we are currently familiar. The
paradigm shift is anticipated to have implications for traditional
channels of knowledge creation and dissemination. It is also anticipated
to facilitate the democratisation of policy-making processes that
influence specific groups and communities.
One cannot discount the
importance of technology access and utilisation for the individuals,
groups, organisations and communities who participate in the knowledge
creation and dissemination processes, and are also impacted by such
processes. However, the future developments in knowledge management
systems have to take into consideration two key issues. First, they need
to be based on an integrated understanding of technological design of such
systems and deep knowledge of how such systems are appropriated by the
adopters. Secondly, they need to be based on an integrated understanding
of the information storage, archival and dissemination processes and
knowledge of how such information is translated into action by the users.
It
is anticipated that a balance between the technological and human elements
of future knowledge management systems would facilitate both learning
and unlearning processes. This balance is anticipated to result in
systems that facilitate 'anticipation of surprise' demanded by the permanent
organisational white-waters of the new world of business. The
resulting loose-tight knowledge management systems would balance the
emphasis on optimisation-based efficiency with the double-loop generative
learning needed for long-term effectiveness. Such systems are anticipated
to more explicitly address the proposed notion of a knowledge ecology that
takes into consideration context, synergy and trust necessary for
translating information into actionable knowledge. Such systems would also
address the long-term and ongoing knowledge creation needs of the
organisations served by knowledge 'intrapreneurs'.
References
1. Peter Drucker: 'The New
Realities'; Drucker, Peter. The New Realities in Government and
Politics/in Economics and Business/in Society and World View, Harper
Business; 1994
2. Steve Kerr: Chief Learning Officer of one of largest US
multinationals; Kerr, Steve. 'Creating the Boundary-less Organisation: The
Radical Reconstruction of Organisation Capabilities,' Planning Review,
Sep-Oct 1995, pp. 41-45.
3. West Churchman: 'The Design
of Enquiring Systems'. Churchman, C.W. The Design of Inquiring Systems,
Basic Books, New York, NY, 1971.
4. Ikujiro Nonaka: first
Professor of Knowledge; Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating
Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1995.
5. Karl Erik Sveiby; Sveiby,
K.E. The New Organisational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based
Assets (Berrett Koehler, 1997)
6. Chris Argyris; Argyris, C.
'Organisational Learning and Management Information Systems,' Accounting,
Organisations and Society, 2(2), 1977, pp. 113-123.
7. Shoshana Zuboff; Zuboff, S.
'The Emperor's New Workplace,' Scientific American, 273(3), September
1995, pp. 202-204.
Dr Yogesh Malhotra is
the Chairman & Chief Knowledge Officer of @BRINT LLC; founder of the
WWW-based ' Virtual Knowledge
Enterprise'. He is Professor of Business Administration at Florida
Atlantic University
|
denotes premium content | May 24 2013 
