Knowledge Management - CiteSeerX

The European Online Magazine for the IT Professional http://www.upgrade-cepis.org Vol. III, No. 1, February 2002

UPGRADE is the European Online Magazine for the Information Technology Professional, published bimonthly at http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/ Publisher UPGRADE is published on behalf of CEPIS (Council of European Professional Informatics Societies, http://www.cepis.org/) by Novática (http://www.ati.es/novatica/) and Informatik/Informatique (http://www.svifsi.ch/revue/) Chief Editors François Louis Nicolet, Zurich Rafael Fernández Calvo, Madrid Editorial Board Prof. Wolffried Stucky, CEPIS President Gloria Nistal Rosique and Rafael Fernández Calvo, ATI Prof. Carl August Zehnder and François Louis Nicolet, SVI/FSI English Editors: Mike Andersson, Richard Butchart, David Cash, Arthur Cook, Tracey Darch, Laura Davies, Nick Dunn, Rodney Fennemore, Hilary Green Roger Harris, Michael Hird, Jim Holder, Alasdair MacLeod, Pat Moody, Adam David Moss, Phil Parkin, Brian Robson Cover page designed by Antonio Crespo Foix, © ATI 2002 Layout: Pascale Schürmann E-mail addresses for editorial correspondence: and E-mail address for advertising correspondence: Copyright © Novática and Informatik/Informatique. All rights reserved. Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source. For copying, reprint, or republication permission, write to the editors. The opinions expressed by the authors are their exclusive responsibility.

Knowledge Management and Information Technology Guest Editors: Christopher Lueg, Xavier Alamán

Joint issue with NOVÁTICA and INFORMATIK/INFORMATIQUE 2 Useful references on Knowledge Management – Xavier Alamán, Guest Editor 4 Knowledge Management and Information Technology: Relationship and Perspectives – Christopher Lueg, Guest Editor 8 Knowing is a Human Act – Richard McDermott Many companies discovered that leveraging knowledge using information technology involves community building as well as information technology.

11 The Paradox of “Knowledge Management” – Jacky Swan and Harry Scarbough An analysis of what is written in the name of on Knowledge Management reveals that Knowledge Management itself suffers from the problems it is trying to address.

15 State-of-Practice of Knowledge Management Systems: Results of an Empirical Study – Ronald Maier A empirical study in the German speaking countries shows that up to date information about the state-of-practice of KMS and barriers to their successful application is scarce.

24 Enabling Distributed Knowledge Management: Managerial and Technological Implications – Matteo Bonifacio, Paolo Bouquet and Paolo Traverso The architecture of KM systems reflects an objectivistic epistemology. Adopting such a view has dramatic consequences at an architectural, managerial and technological level.

31 Knowledge-Assisted Reverse Engineering of Virtual Work Processes – Robert P. Biuk-Aghai, Simeon J. Simoff and Ingrid Slembek A design approach for virtual workspaces, combines data mining techniques for refining lower-level models with a reverse engineering cycle to create upper-level models.

36 Data Mining of Collaborative Virtual Workspaces: The “Space-Data-Memory” Framework – Simeon J. Simoff and Robert P. Biuk-Aghai Research aims to extract insights from vast amounts of data about actions and content of collaborative project activities and reuse knowledge in the development of new workspaces.

40 Communication-oriented Computer Support for Knowledge Management – Volkmar Pipek and Markus Won We look at perspectives on support for knowledge management: communication on information artifacts, as information artifacts, and on infrastructures for information artifacts.

45 Some Critical Remarks in Favour of IT-Based Knowledge Management – Reinhard Riedl We shall discuss the state of the art in contemporary knowledge management with respect to processes, tools, people, and the role and potential impact of information technology.

51 Knowledge Management in a Law Firm – Cristina Rodríguez Morcón, José Pérez García, Juan Alberto Sigüenza Pizarro A legal knowledge management tool was developed is the result of the combined efforts of end users, knowledge management area, systems area and an external collaborating company.

56 SINTAGMA: From Information to Knowledge – Joaquín Bastos Amigo Sintagma is an integral information management platform. It is capable of completing 100% of the information cycle in a software solution.

60 IT Tools for Knowledge Management: A Study of the Current Situation – Ruth Cobos, José A. Esquivel and Xavier Alamán We describe a classification for KM systems based on the support the system gives to collaborative work and the focus it has on providing a structure for the knowledge.

66 Knowledge Management: A Trip Round Europe – Fabián García Pastor We take a look at knowledge management applications in Europe, their manufacturers and some of the main projects and lines of research.

Coming issue: “eXtreme Programming”

72 Efficient Management of Multilingual Electronic Conferences – Daniel Pimienta, Catherine Dhaussy Web conferences often fail in communication aspects. We claim for an alternative approach focusing more on methodology than software to disseminate information.

1

Knowledge Management and Information Technology

The Paradox of “Knowledge Management” Jacky Swan and Harry Scarbough

Knowledge Management has emerged as a critical new approach to problems associated with new forms of organizing and the distribution of knowledge. This contribution summarizes an analysis of what is written in the name of on Knowledge Management. The paradox this reveals is that Knowledge Management itself suffers from the problems it is trying to address – i.e. problems to do with the distribution and lack of integration of knowledge across, in this case, disciplinary boundaries.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Professions, Networks, IT, Diffusion Introduction Knowledge Management (KM) is being heralded as an important new approach to problems of competitiveness and innovation currently confronting organizations. This paper summarizes a review of the now burgeoning literature on KM. The review focuses on, firstly, what the literature has to tell us about the communication and content of KM, and, secondly on current views of the role and deployment of knowledge in organizations. This enables us to identify; a) the conditions for the successful diffusion of KM as a set of ideas or a managerial discourse, and b) the conditions for the successful implementation of KM as an organizational practice. A central finding here is that the factors that promote the successful diffusion of KM as a concept may preclude its implementation as a practice. In particular, we argue that KM has been fashioned in different ways by different professional communities and, whilst this has ensured its popular appeal, it also poses problems for its overall coherence as an organizational practice. The Impetus and Rationale for KM The first points to note about KM are that interest has soared and definitions abound. Here, reflecting our view that knowledge (and therefore KM) is multifaceted, the term is scoped out broadly as: any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organizations [Prusak 97]. The impetus for the widespread appeal of KM comes from both ideology and practice. In ideological terms, the idea of managing knowledge maps well onto a background where knowledge (together with knowledge work and knowledge workers) is being viewed as increasingly critical to organizations and society as a, if not the, key resource. [Gibbons et al. 94] note, further, that dominant “modes of knowledge production” are shifting from a conventional (Mode 1) model, where knowledge is produced in ivory-tower, single-discipline-based institutions, to a new, (Mode 2) model where knowledge is transdisciplinary and produced at the point of application. These shifts are assumed to have important implications for KM.

© Novática and Informatik/Informatique

This new “era” is also characterized as requiring new, more flexible and less bureaucratized, forms of organization (flatter structures, decentralized, networked, global, even virtual forms) and co-ordination through increasing use of information technology (IT). However, in practical terms, as businesses are re-organized and stretched across time and space, they also lose opportunities for casual sharing of knowledge and learning induced by physical proximity. As Prusak puts it: “If the water cooler was a font of useful knowledge in the traditional firm, what constitutes a virtual one.” Thus, although the term KM may ultimately become another management fad, the impetus for it is the profound organizational problems posed by these new organizational forms. These debates have raised a number of questions about the ways in which organizations, technologies and people are managed in the “new” knowledge society. However, a review of the KM literature, presented next, suggests that these central questions are not, as yet, being addressed coherently. Data Sources Our research included a macro-quantitative analysis that tracked the numbers of articles on KM published over an eleven-year (1990–2000) period in the popular and academic journals across different professional domains (IT/IS, Organization Theory / HRM; Strategy, Artificial Intelligence, Accounting, and “other general management”). This search

Jacky Swan (Ph.D.) is Professor in Organizational Behaviour at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK. She is also Director of the Innovation, Knowledge and Organizational Networks (IKON) Research Unit. She has published widely in the area of innovation and knowledge management, focusing in particular on the links between networks, knowledge transformation and the diffusion of innovation. Harry Scarbough (PhD). Is Professor in Organizational Analysis and Director of Research at Leicester Management Centre, University of Leicester, UK. He has published widely in the area of Knowledge Management including a book on the Management of Expertise. His current research focuses on managing knowledge in project-based environments.

UPGRADE Vol. III, No. 1, February 2002

11

Knowledge Management and Information Technology

revealed a total of 1,122 articles on KM. Added to this was a qualitative analyses of the content of the discourse of KM as represented in the texts of these journals and other literature (e.g. professional association reports and educational materials). This identified the key themes and discourses of KM as depicted in the current literature. Findings from the Review of KM The diffusion of KM, in as much as it is reflected in the numbers of articles using the idea, is shown in Figure 1. This confirms its rapid and widespread diffusion – suggesting that the diffusion of KM appears to follow the classic “bell-shaped” pattern typical of other management fashions [Abrahamson 96]. However, it is also clear that KM has not diffused evenly. When articles are grouped according to the professional journals in which they appear (Figure 2), the IT/IS community appears as very dominant in the diffusion of KM. For example, of all the articles listed in the 11-year period, just over 41% were written by and for computer or IT/IS professionals. It can be seen, then, that the IT community (broadly defined as encompassing IT managers, IT suppliers, consultants and academics) has become an important professional patron of KM. This supports earlier work [Scarbrough/Swan 01]. In terms of the content of KM, the dominance of the IT/IS community has, not surprisingly, generated an emphasis on knowledge capture and codification. The broad idea of KM (as to do with organization, technology and people) has thus been colonized by this community and reinterpreted as the development and promotion of “knowledge technologies” (e.g. data warehouses, Intranets, data mining). This emphasis in “KM systems” was also evident in the content of many of the articles discussing KM that appeared in the “general management” journals. Given the obvious strategic appeal of “knowledge” over “information”, this repackaging of KM as systems implementation appeared to offer distinct possibilities for improving the status of IT managers. As [Maglitta 95] notes: “IS plays a key leadership or support role. IS’s systematic thinking, tech-

12

UPGRADE Vol. III, No. 1, February 2002

500 400 300 200 100 0 Other

Fig. 1: Number of Articles on “Knowledge Management” 1990–2000 (ABI Inform/Proquest)

AI

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

0

Strat

100

OB/OT

200

Acc

300

HRM

400

Mgmt

500

nology know-how, and experience of working with many departments can be the perfect background for KM”. Although many articles agree that technology is “only” one (of many) enablers for KM, many still shift rapidly to a narrow focus on “KM systems”. However, our analysis also suggested a “second wave” in the discourse in the late 1990s, and a backlash of criticism against KM’s emphasis on technology. Social and behavioural concerns (e.g. the development of “communities of practice”) became much more central to the KM agenda. However, where these concerns were discussed, there was relatively little reference to IT, except to note its limits. Our analysis suggests, then, a polarization in the literature between “KM as systems” and “KM as people”. This reinforces separation between technology and people that, in our view, is unhelpful for the actual practice of KM. The review suggests, further, that KM is not exclusively the domain of IT professionals. Rather, heterogeneous professional groups tend to discuss and interpret KM in different terms. For example (and of course with exceptions) according to many IT professionals the aim of KM is to capture and codify tacit knowledge (seen as in the heads of people) so that this can be more widely shared and reused. Metaphors of digging, mining, extracting and exploiting underpin many discussions here. Knowledge is seen as something objectifiable and IT is therefore central. In contrast, those in the domains of HRM and organization theory are much more likely to espouse the virtues of developing and building people, organizational processes and social communities rather than to advocate the use of IT [Alvesson/Karreman 01]. Here the dominant metaphors are more reminiscent of those associated with the learning organization and organizational culture – i.e. of building, creating and developing cultures and communities. In contrast (again) the discourse of KM among AI professionals is tightly tied to knowledge representation and elicitation. Thus KM is seen as a natural extension and possibility of knowledge representation techniques. AI experts see their work as being about developing expert systems that actually represent the knowledge of experts. In this way computer systems can actually be the experts – an advantage because experts (by definition) are in short supply. Possibilities of expert surgery by

IT

no of hits

Fig. 2: Total Number of Articles by Profession (1990–2000)

© Novática and Informatik/Informatique

Knowledge Management and Information Technology machines comes to mind. The metaphor here, then is the cyborg – the machine-come-brain with qualities of human judgement. Indeed, AI professionals can be dismissive of the kinds of generic software packages (one interviewee referred to these as “mickey-mouse” systems) developed by those working in IT/IS. This, they would argue is merely about generating information and has little to do with knowledge. Among those working in accountancy KM tended to be discussed differently again, acting as a backdrop to the problems of measuring human and intellectual capital. Thus here there was a concern that the central and strategic importance of the accountancy profession had been threatened in recent years by the large market prices commanded by many firms (e.g. “dot com” companies) on the basis of apparently intangible assets to do with human capital. Traditional accountancy practices simply could not measure these intangibles. Thus “cultivating and measuring the “great intangible” of human capital is the next major challenge for both company boards and their accountants… Measuring intangibles like human capital may seem like a break with the accounting profession’s traditions but it is essential to building Britain’s sustainable economic success” (quote from the President of the ICAEW). Here, then, KM is associated with measurement – the metaphor becomes the “yardstick”. Discussion and Conclusions The impetus and rationale for KM suggests that personnel professionals, organizational analysts, IT professionals and accountants each have something to contribute to developing coherent and workable KM practices. However, our findings suggest that these communities discuss KM in different terms and rarely intersect. KM is discussed in terms that appeal to the strategic agendas and focal interests of distinctive professional groups. Put crudely, for example, IT specialists wish to use KM to push for the development and marketing of systems while personnel/HR practitioners wish to use KM as an argument for developing people management practices. Thus, distinctive “speech communities” have emerged in the KM debate – communities constructed mainly around IT/IS, HRM and strategy/general management [Raub/Ruling 01]. Ironically, then, despite KM’s attempt to remedy problems associated with the distribution of knowledge, the subject of KM itself becomes prone to the very same problems – knowledge pertaining to KM becomes fragmented and distributed across professional boundaries. This highlights the importance of understanding the roles of social and professional networks in the diffusion process – as KM diffuses via different networks, the idea itself becomes transmuted and fragmented. This fragmentation of KM needs to be understood in the context of broader institutional arrangements such as those surrounding professional career development and training. Thus, despite hints that we may be shifting towards more transdisciplinary modes of knowledge production [Gibbons et al. 94], institutional structures and arrangements continue to support demarcation across professional boundaries (at least in AngloAmerican societies [Abbott 88]). Indeed, in some cases, there seems to be conflict and competition across professions as they

© Novática and Informatik/Informatique

battle for the KM turf. This is evidenced, for example, in discussions at a recent European Human Resources Conference that noted that there was far too much emphasis on the notion that KM had something to do with IT. Instead, it was argued, it was up to HR professionals to become “the guardians” of knowledge management noting that: “if HR doesn’t take up the challenge, others will” [Johnson 88]. The patronage and “stylizing” of KM by professional communities, especially the IT community, has paradoxical effects. On the one hand, in terms of diffusion, it is highly likely that part of KM’s success has been its affiliation to tangible aspects of technology. This has perhaps been accelerated by a proliferation of new technologies during the period as well as by the rapid cycle time and wide appeal of publications and magazines focusing on technological development. It is also the case that KM has been appropriated selectively by this community to reflect, as would be reasonably expected, their primary interests – notably concerning investment in IT and IT development. Yet, as noted earlier, the rationale for KM calls for a variety of management practices, including the application of IT but also the redesign of organizational routines and the development of HR practices. In terms of KM practice, then, and like earlier fads such as BPR (sometimes called the “Fad that Forgot People” [Davenport 96]), it is likely that a narrow emphasis on IT will ultimately disappoint. This may result in KM’s demise thus reinforcing the fashion cycle. The current popularity of “communities of practice”, for example, although maybe not as “catchy”, may be occurring as a backlash to some of the obvious weaknesses entailed by KM focus on IT. The diffusion of KM can itself be seen, then, an interesting example of the social construction of knowledge, with the result here being that knowledge relevant to KM is both dispersed and disintegrated. The paradox here is that whilst the diffusion of KM is occurring within bounded professional networks (i.e. is arguably mediated by a “Mode 1” logic in Gibbons’ terms), the practice of KM suggests a need to dissolve functional and professional boundaries (i.e. to work according to a “Mode 2” logic). Ironically, then, a consequence of the stylizing of KM by different professional groups is that, when applied in organizations, it could become an example of the very problems that it seeks to address. These concern problems of developing, sharing, integrating and re-cycling knowledge that is increasingly distributed across organizational, occupational and professional boundaries [Prusak 97]. References [Abbott 88] A. Abbott: The System of Professions. London: University of Chicago Press 1988. [Abrahamson 96] E. Abrahamson: Management Fashion. Academy of Management Review 1996, 21: 254–285 [Alvesson/Karreman 01] M. Alvesson and D. Karreman: Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies 2001, 38, 995–1–18. [Davenport 96] T. H. Davenport: Why reengineering failed: the fad that forgot people. Fast Company 1996, Premier Issue: 70–74.

UPGRADE Vol. III, No. 1, February 2002

13

Knowledge Management and Information Technology [Gibbons et al. 94] M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London 1994: Sage. [Johnson 88] M. Johnson: HR looks in the mirror. HR Focus1988, 75(7), 304 [Maglitta 95] J. Maglitta: “Smarten Up!”, Computerworld, 29(23), 1995, 84–88

14

UPGRADE Vol. III, No. 1, February 2002

[Prusak 97] L. Prusak: Knowledge in Organizations, Oxford 1997: Butterworth-Heinemann. [Raub/Ruling 01] S. Raub and C. Ruling: The knowledge management tussle: Speech communities and rhetorical strategies in the development of knowledge management. Journal of Information Technology, 16, 2001, 113–130. [Scarbrough/Swan 01] H. Scarbrough and J. Swan: Explaining the diffusion of knowledge management. British Journal of Management, 12, 2001, 3–12.

© Novática and Informatik/Informatique