ARTICLE SUMMARY & REVIEW (Week3-Class4) by Fatemeh Hosseini
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Article: Factors Affecting the Adoption of Knowledge Management Technologies: A Discriminative Approach
Sherry D Ryan, & Victor R Prybutok. (2001). Factors affecting the adoption of knowledge management technologies: A discriminative approach. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41(4), 31-37.
Summary:
This research paper investigates the characteristics associated with adaptation of KM technologies through a survey of IT executives. It begins with introducing the KM and the reasons for the increase in its recognition by organizations according to literature. The paper uses a theoretical framework which consists of three contextual variables that influence the information system adoption process:
a. Organizational: characteristics of the organizations
b. Environmental: the circumstances and climate in which the organization conducts its business
c. Technological: the characteristics of existing technologies in the organization & their influence
The paper then applies this framework to the adoption of KM technologies and consequently proposes four hypotheses:
H1: a higher degree of strategic relevance of IT positively influence the organization’s decision to adopt KM technologies
H2: Organizations with higher proportion of knowledge workers will be more inclined than other organizations to adopt KM technologies
H3: Organizations with prior user-centric technologies are more inclined to adopt KM technologies
H4: Higher level of investment in technology per employee will positively influence the organization’s decision to adopt KM technologies
The result of the study confirms that:
- Those organizations that use IT for strategic purposes are more likely to adopt KM technologies than those who do not, and this could have huge competitive consequences for those who are ignoring KM.
- Those organizations with prior experience with user-centric technologies (e.g. client/server technology) are more likely to adopt KM technologies. This could be related to the business mindset, technical expertise, and support infrastructure associated with client/server technology. As many of those organizations have reconceptualised their support strategies, providing the end-users with training and help needed to use the technological tools.
- Higher level of IT investment per employee in the past has a positive influence on the organization’s decision to adopt KM technologies.
- The environmental factor was not significant in the adoption of KM technologies in the organizations.
Review:
This is an empirical study that was a bit hard to read due to highly academic and technical style of writing with mentioning several theories and frameworks and how they are supposed to work, but not many specific examples about how exactly the technologies are used in the organizations and. The paper seems to be targeting the top level management groups or those who make decision about adopting of KM technologies rather than the lower level knowledge workers.
The paper looks at the three key technologies in KM (based on the available literature): intranets, groupware, and data warehouses. So the study only focuses on these technologies, and other types of KM technologies which may be more common or effective these days are not included. However, the extensive list of provided references which can be useful for following up on any of the mentioned topics/concepts.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Knowledge management systems: finding a way with technology
ARTICLE SUMMARY & REVIEW (Week3-Class4) by Fatemeh Hosseini
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Article: John S. Edwards, Duncan Shaw & Paul M. Collier (2005). Knowledge management systems: finding a way with technology. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 9 (1), 113-125.
Summary:
This article aims to consider the role of technology in KM in organizations (both current role and desired one). The authors review the literature with a focus on technology and KM Systems, while acknowledging that KM involves all 3 of organizational, human, and technical issues, and technical aspect is not the most important one. The literature review found out that the expert and knowledge-based system software have a role to play in supporting the KM, but so does the more conventional/general software (such as; email, search engines, discussion forums, databases, and etc.).
The research was carried out by conducting 10 workshops on 10 different organizations (with a variety of sizes and types), with 5-10 participants from the same organization attending each workshop.
The research result showed that use of general IT tools (e.g. emails, shared databases, and intranet) were among the most common tools to support KM activities rather than use of specific tools to KM. But the issue about the use of general IT tools for most organizations seems to be how to use them effectively in supporting KM.
The authors conclude that, each organization need to find a solution for their use of technology to support KM that is right for them and there is no “one size fit all” solution. But the article identifies 4 types of tensions that can influence the decisions about IT and KM and each organization needs to resolve them in order to support KM:
1) Quality Vs Quantity of information and knowledge that is being managed: e.g. existence of unfocussed and irrelevant content of shared databases
2) Centralized Vs Decentralized organizations: does KM imply a more centralized organization? What about importance of informal organizations (e.g. social networks)?
3) “Head office" Vs Operational knowledge. who should decide which knowledge needs to be managed?
4) “Push” Vs “Pull” information/knowledge strategies: How to get the right balance?
Review:
This was an empirical research article going into extensive details about description of the methodology used for data collection (i.e. observation in the workshops). It also mentions specific findings of the research about each participated organization and their extent of technology use in KM (and examples), organization’s overall focus of KM (on people, technology, or processes), issues and concerns of the current KM, and their desired level of KM. This was an easy-to-read article with lots of examples, but the examples are very general and don’t give specific information about how the organization is using the technologies and what could be changed to make them more effective.
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Article: John S. Edwards, Duncan Shaw & Paul M. Collier (2005). Knowledge management systems: finding a way with technology. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 9 (1), 113-125.
Summary:
This article aims to consider the role of technology in KM in organizations (both current role and desired one). The authors review the literature with a focus on technology and KM Systems, while acknowledging that KM involves all 3 of organizational, human, and technical issues, and technical aspect is not the most important one. The literature review found out that the expert and knowledge-based system software have a role to play in supporting the KM, but so does the more conventional/general software (such as; email, search engines, discussion forums, databases, and etc.).
The research was carried out by conducting 10 workshops on 10 different organizations (with a variety of sizes and types), with 5-10 participants from the same organization attending each workshop.
The research result showed that use of general IT tools (e.g. emails, shared databases, and intranet) were among the most common tools to support KM activities rather than use of specific tools to KM. But the issue about the use of general IT tools for most organizations seems to be how to use them effectively in supporting KM.
The authors conclude that, each organization need to find a solution for their use of technology to support KM that is right for them and there is no “one size fit all” solution. But the article identifies 4 types of tensions that can influence the decisions about IT and KM and each organization needs to resolve them in order to support KM:
1) Quality Vs Quantity of information and knowledge that is being managed: e.g. existence of unfocussed and irrelevant content of shared databases
2) Centralized Vs Decentralized organizations: does KM imply a more centralized organization? What about importance of informal organizations (e.g. social networks)?
3) “Head office" Vs Operational knowledge. who should decide which knowledge needs to be managed?
4) “Push” Vs “Pull” information/knowledge strategies: How to get the right balance?
Review:
This was an empirical research article going into extensive details about description of the methodology used for data collection (i.e. observation in the workshops). It also mentions specific findings of the research about each participated organization and their extent of technology use in KM (and examples), organization’s overall focus of KM (on people, technology, or processes), issues and concerns of the current KM, and their desired level of KM. This was an easy-to-read article with lots of examples, but the examples are very general and don’t give specific information about how the organization is using the technologies and what could be changed to make them more effective.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management
MMIM 503 – Week 2 – Class 3
Fahey, L., Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Summary:
The authors present a selection of common errors of knowledge management based on their observations of over a hundred knowledge projects. Following discussion of eleven particular errors or categories of errors, the authors propose a series of actions which managers can embark upon to avoid them.
The first errors stem from issues surrounding the definition of knowledge (as distinct from data and information) and the privileging of the concept of knowledge stock over the concept of knowledge flow.
The next group of errors involve the failure to recognize the role of the individual as the focus of knowledge generation, transmission and use. Context and the creation of shared context amongst groups of individuals is the key here.
Trivializing the role and importance of tacit knowledge, and the decoupling of knowledge from its uses are the focus of the next two errors.
The failure to challenge the dominance and pervasiveness of tacit knowledge can impact negatively on thinking and reasoning. This, combined with a failure to focus on the future and a reluctance to value experimentation are three more common errors.
Failure to recognize that human intervention is the only source of knowledge generation, combined with an overemphasis on direct measures of knowledge, complete the roster of common knowledge management errors.
By way of remedies for these errors, the authors suggest continual reflection on knowledge as an organizational phenomenon, and the obsessive noting and correction of errors in managers’ stock of knowledge and knowledge processes.
Review:
This article identifies a useful set of common errors and false assumptions surrounding the issue of Knowledge Management. Of particular interest is the emphasis on the central role the individual plays in the generation, transmission and use of knowledge. Thus, many issues surrounding Knowledge Management are related to the management of people.
Fahey, L., Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Summary:
The authors present a selection of common errors of knowledge management based on their observations of over a hundred knowledge projects. Following discussion of eleven particular errors or categories of errors, the authors propose a series of actions which managers can embark upon to avoid them.
The first errors stem from issues surrounding the definition of knowledge (as distinct from data and information) and the privileging of the concept of knowledge stock over the concept of knowledge flow.
The next group of errors involve the failure to recognize the role of the individual as the focus of knowledge generation, transmission and use. Context and the creation of shared context amongst groups of individuals is the key here.
Trivializing the role and importance of tacit knowledge, and the decoupling of knowledge from its uses are the focus of the next two errors.
The failure to challenge the dominance and pervasiveness of tacit knowledge can impact negatively on thinking and reasoning. This, combined with a failure to focus on the future and a reluctance to value experimentation are three more common errors.
Failure to recognize that human intervention is the only source of knowledge generation, combined with an overemphasis on direct measures of knowledge, complete the roster of common knowledge management errors.
By way of remedies for these errors, the authors suggest continual reflection on knowledge as an organizational phenomenon, and the obsessive noting and correction of errors in managers’ stock of knowledge and knowledge processes.
Review:
This article identifies a useful set of common errors and false assumptions surrounding the issue of Knowledge Management. Of particular interest is the emphasis on the central role the individual plays in the generation, transmission and use of knowledge. Thus, many issues surrounding Knowledge Management are related to the management of people.
The State of the Notion: Knowledge Mangement in Practice
MMIM 503 - Week 2 - Class 2
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Summary:
The article looks at the results of a 1997 study of U.S. and European organizations and their approaches to Knowledge Management. The study examines Knowledge Management in these organizations from three perspectives: What is being done now to manage knowledge; what could or should be done; and what are the greatest barriers to their KM efforts.
Taking a process-based view of organizational management, the authors of the study apply this perspective to the management of knowledge, and develop eight categories of knowledge focused activities (knowledge processes).
The study reveals that in attempting to improve performance in one or more of these processes, organizations have embarked on a variety of KM projects. The four most popular projects are taken as representative of the current state of the practice in KM: Creating an Intranet; Data Warehousing/Creating Knowledge Repositories; Implementing Decision-Support Tools; and Implementing Groupware to Support Collaboration.
In terms of what could/should be done by organizations, the study finds the following three initiatives to be the most popular on the “to do” list: Mapping sources of internal expertise; creating networks of knowledge workers; and establishing new knowledge roles.
The authors of the study identify the balance of 50/25/25 people/process/technology from the outset as crucial to the success or failure of new KM initiatives.
Review:
This 1997 study shows its age now in terms of some of the KM projects which were priorities at the time – creating an intranet for example. However, the process-based view of KM, and the eight categories of processes identified provide a useful framework for the analysis of KM within an organization.
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Summary:
The article looks at the results of a 1997 study of U.S. and European organizations and their approaches to Knowledge Management. The study examines Knowledge Management in these organizations from three perspectives: What is being done now to manage knowledge; what could or should be done; and what are the greatest barriers to their KM efforts.
Taking a process-based view of organizational management, the authors of the study apply this perspective to the management of knowledge, and develop eight categories of knowledge focused activities (knowledge processes).
The study reveals that in attempting to improve performance in one or more of these processes, organizations have embarked on a variety of KM projects. The four most popular projects are taken as representative of the current state of the practice in KM: Creating an Intranet; Data Warehousing/Creating Knowledge Repositories; Implementing Decision-Support Tools; and Implementing Groupware to Support Collaboration.
In terms of what could/should be done by organizations, the study finds the following three initiatives to be the most popular on the “to do” list: Mapping sources of internal expertise; creating networks of knowledge workers; and establishing new knowledge roles.
The authors of the study identify the balance of 50/25/25 people/process/technology from the outset as crucial to the success or failure of new KM initiatives.
Review:
This 1997 study shows its age now in terms of some of the KM projects which were priorities at the time – creating an intranet for example. However, the process-based view of KM, and the eight categories of processes identified provide a useful framework for the analysis of KM within an organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)