Leaders need to understand knoweldge management
In the modern business world, knowledge management is one of the key skills that leaders need to understand and implement. With ever-increasing competition in every field, having a clear understanding of how to manage information can give organizations an edge over their rivals. This article will explore why knowledge management is so important for organizational success and offer practical advice on how leaders can best utilize this crucial skill.
In this post, we will answer four main questions: What is knowledge? How do we define knowledge? What is knowledge management? How do we define knowledge management?
The dynamics of changes in the market, as well as the extensive complexity of the market, require economic organizations to undertake innovative actions determining the necessity of the creation, development, usage, and protection of their intellectual capital, i.e., intangible resources and knowledge resources.
Knowledge management is not a problem of free choice. It is a contemporary requirement, a condition of further development, concerning not only organizations but also whole economies. It should be emphasized here that a knowledge-based economy is becoming the leading paradigm of the world economy[1].
Knowledge management definition
To identify the notion of knowledge management, “management” and “knowledge” need to be defined. It is worth noticing that both terms are defined ambiguously.
F.W. Taylor provides a general term for management, defining it as “a precise understanding of what is expected from people and then ensuring that they will do it the best and cheapest way.”[2] J. Zieleniewski defines management as “a specific type of directing occurring when power over people arises from property rights to objects necessary for them and work tools... [3].
J. Kurnal similarly describes management, claiming that this is a specific type of direction based on organizational power resulting from ownership rights to measures.[4] H. Steinmann and G. Schreyogg distinguish two approaches to the notion of “management”:[5] “Institutional": understanding management as a group of persons entrusted with authorizations to issue instructions within the organization; and “functional”: referring to actions aimed at directing the work process, i.e., any activities necessary for the pursuit of the organization's tasks.[6]
A.K. Komiski and K. Obój find that the essence of management consists in “ensuring the functional balance of the organization. (…) Instruments aimed at maintaining such functional balance include organizational structure, operating procedures, strategy, and organizational culture”.[7]
Knowledge definition
There are numerous definitions of knowledge. Some define it as information in action[8], other ones as framed in context and allowing action information,[9] next ones assume that knowledge is what we acquire through experience, communication, and interference to believe in and evaluate something based on possessed information[10], and still others as a business tool in the processes of making decisions, planning, evaluating, and forecasting.[11]
A. Brooking distinguishes data as numbers, symbols, images, and facts, which are deprived of context. She defines data framed in context as information and calls knowledge the ability to use information.[12]
Knowledge can also be treated as a sort of combination of experience, values, information on the context, and the expert's insight into a given issue, allowing for the creation of frames for evaluation and incorporating new experiences and information[13].
Knowledge is characterized by:
• predominant nature: it prevails over other resources of the organization and constitutes the main factor of its success,
• inexhaustibility: the sum of knowledge increases, not decreases, over time.
• immateriality: knowledge is elusive, difficult to measure ,and difficult to present.
• occurrence simultaneity: knowledge can be used simultaneously in numerous applications without losing value. [14]
Furthermore, knowledge is characterized by such features as nonlinearity, complexity, assimilability, applicability, and the possibility of protection.[15]
Explicit and tacit knowledge
As far as the nature of knowledge is concerned, explicit and tacit knowledge can be distinguished, whereas, with regard to its subject, knowledge can be recommended, relational, procedural and axiomatic. It should be emphasized that knowledge serves specific employees or groups of employees, whose roles, functions and tasks, thus, needs connected with knowledge, can be very different[16].
Knowledge management has been one of the most important areas of research of management sciences over recent years. This thesis is confirmed by, e.g. a relatively large number of publications. These include both theoretical studies and results of empirical research[17].
Knowledge management is a collection of processes enabling creation, dissemination and use of knowledge for achieving the organization's objectives.[18] Knowledge management takes place at two levels. The first level covers creation and use of knowledge for achieving the objectives the organization has set for itself. The second objective covers the use of knowledge already existing in the enterprise.
Knowledge management targets the acquisition, collection, and use of knowledge in a way that allows success, competitive advantage, and an increase in the organization's value and wealth. Possessing and increasing knowledge resources determine the development of each organization and, consequently, the economy[19].
What is knowledge, and how do people understand it?
Metaphors are very important in the development of abstract ideas. However, they show us the main points and hide others from the eye of the public, and if taken literally, they can be very misleading when taking into consideration the details of a situation. In the same breath, knowledge is an abstract idea, and according to existing research, in the three most quoted KM (knowledge management) texts, about 99% of the references to knowledge are metaphorical[20]. Andriessen[21] discovered a total of 22 different metaphors for knowledge, of which three were very dominant in Western KM literature.
KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE
The knowledge AS A RESOURCE metaphor itemizes the source domain of resources to help people reason about knowledge. There are many attributes for ‘resources’ here since knowledge can be stored, shared, and used in a production process. People can also talk about the ‘amount of knowledge’ they possess.
This metaphor considers knowledge to be an input-output (logistical) system. The English language also allows for characteristics of resources, such as the ‘size’ and ‘weight’ of knowledge, which might seem impossible to measure. Other characteristics of knowledge are also not covered by this metaphor, such as the lack of rivalry in knowledge and its non-additiveness are not covered[22]. Even knowledge being ‘tacit’ is not covered by this metaphor. By treating knowledge as a resource in the KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor, the knowledge itself becomes part of an organization’s logistical discourse.
KNOWLEDGE AS AN ASSET
The knowledge AS AN ASSET metaphor uses the source domain of assets to help the reader think about knowledge. There are several terms taken from the field of finance and accounting that are used here, including that an organization or person can control knowledge to generate future economic benefits for their business or organization. Indefinable costs are explained that are used in production and thus should be included in the organization’s reporting system.
The knowledge AS AN ASSET metaphor enables us to think of knowledge as part of the accounting practice in an organization.
The KNOWLEDGE AS AN ASSET metaphor also uses the source domain of ‘assets’ to help individuals think about knowledge. Several factors or terms from accounting are used in this metaphor, including showing how much knowledge can cost or how it can be measured, utilized, and even used in the production process to generate benefits that flow into the organization for a long time. Through the use of the knowledge AS AN ASSET metaphor, knowledge becomes part of the accounting world in the organizations in which it is employed. In a business or organization, there are people concerned with management, planning, control, and reporting of knowledge as an asset.
This metaphor shows that knowledge-related problems are a result of the inability to control and manage knowledge. This is caused by the lack or inability of the business or organization to identify knowledge, constantly manage information, and give it the attention it needs. This also touches on the idea that what can be measured can be managed. The intellectual capital’ movement started Sveiby[23] in the mid-1990s advocated the inclusion of knowledge in the measurement systems of an organization and thus inspired the popularity of the knowledge AS AN ASSET metaphor.
Although traditional economies used to depend on tangible assets such as land and capital only, in the 21st century we have evolved and the knowledge of individuals is the primary factor in every production process, which gives a business a competitive edge[24].
The most valued characteristic of knowledge is its uniqueness and novelty, which cannot be imitated or substituted and make it a strategic resource for every business[25].
NOWLEDGE AS PROPERTY
The knowledge AS PROPERTY metaphor makes knowledge usable, like any other legal property, in cases of legal issues. This enables thinking about knowledge as something capable of being owned, having value, and being exclusive. This brings up:
The legal rights aspects of knowledge
Knowledge being transferable,
knowledge that could be commercialized.
The use of the knowledge AS A RESOURCE metaphor applies the source domain of resources to help the reader reason about knowledge. Many characteristics of knowledge are used in this reasoning about knowledge. Also, knowledge is used in the production process and can be stored and even shared.
There is also the possibility of talking about the amount of knowledge, and this metaphor also allows for the placement of knowledge in the context of an input/output system. From that perspective, people very often talk about the ‘size’ or ‘weight’ of knowledge. At the same time, there are some characteristics of knowledge that are not covered by this metaphor, such as the non-rivalry and non-additivity of knowledge[26] and the tacitness of knowledge.
To bring out these characteristics, there is a need to address other metaphors. Use of the KNOWLEDEG AS A RESOURCE metaphor is, however, not without consequences. It also makes logistics part of the discussion about the organization, and logistics is dominated by individuals focused on the ICT perspective and ways of maximizing production or managing quality. The KNOWLEDGE AS A RESOURCE metaphor endorses a view of knowledge that faces the problem of distribution—that it is not in the right place at the right time. This view gives meaning to ICT solutions that enable the storage and distribution of knowledge.
The knowledge AS PROPERTY metaphor is mainly used in legal matters in organizations. It gives people the ability to think of knowledge as a resource that can be owned, given value, and made exclusive. It brings out the legal part of knowledge and the ability of knowledge to be transferred or even commercialized to generate income.
The knowledge AS AN ASSET metaphor provides the view that knowledge can be appropriately and legally protected. This is part of the solution provided as a result of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) as part of the licensing of knowledge.
Knowledge, data, and information should not be confused because data is raw facts, measurements, and statistics that have not been interpreted, while knowledge is more advanced than information, which is a result of processed data that makes sense.
Knowledge is the result of interpreting information based on someone's understanding and their views. Knowledge is mainly based on the interpretation of the person because it needs the judgment and incorporation of the intuition, beliefs, and behaviors of that individual[27].
Knowledge transfer
Although in traditional knowledge management the emphasis is placed on the technology or the ability to build the system that can efficiently process and leverage knowledge, current systems of knowledge management focus on people and their actions in organizations. They are mainly designed to create an environment where power is based on sharing knowledge and not just keeping the knowledge acquired. The transfer of knowledge requires people to share it with other people, to achieve mutual benefits[28]. Al-Alawi[29] emphasizes that knowledge management initiatives are weak organizations which ignore the cultural and organization development issues in knowledge deployment. These are very seminal issues that are highly critical in any successful knowledge management system.
Transform Your Leadership and Unlock Your Full Potential with Executive Coaching
Are you eager to take your leadership skills to the next level? Do you aspire to become an exceptional executive who drives meaningful change and achieves extraordinary results? Look no further than our transformative leadership coaching and executive coaching programs.
Knowledge and knowledge management literature and bibliography
[1] Chmielecki M., Cultural barriers of knowledge management-a case of Poland, „Journal of Intercultural Management”, No. 4.2, 2012, pp. 100-110.
[2] Taylor F.W., Shop Management, Harper and Row, New York 1903, p. 21, quoted after Griffin R.W., Podstawy zarządzania organizacjami, Warszawa 1996, p. 36.
[3] Zieleniewski J., Organizacja zespołów ludzkich, Warszawa 1982, p. 393.
[4] Kurnal J., Zarys teorii organizacji i zarządzania, Warszawa 1969, p. 366.
[5] Steinmann H., Schreyogg G., Zarządzanie. Podstawy kierowania przedsiębiorstwem, Wrocław 1995, p. 18.
[6] Steinmann H., Schreyogg G., Zarządzanie. Podstawy kierowania przedsiębiorstwem, Wrocław 1995, p. 19.
[7] Koźmiński A.K., Obłój K., Zarys teorii równowagi organizacyjnej, Warszawa 1989, pp. 194-196.
[8] Elliott S., O’Dell C., Sharing knowledge and best practices, “Health Forum Journal”, No. 42(3), 1999, p. 34.
[9] Zack M.H., Managing codified knowledge, “MIT Sloan Management Review”, No. 40 (3), 1999, p. 46.
[10] Turban E., Aronson J.E., Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey 2005.
[11] Tiwana A., The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Orchestrating IT, Strategy, and Knowledge Platforms. Upper S River, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 2002.
[12] Brooking A., Corporate Memory. Strategies for Knowledge Memory, “International Thompson Business Press”, London 1999, pp. 4-5.
[13] Davenport T.H., Prusak L., Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston 1998, p. 5.
[14] See Kamela-Sowińska A., Wprowadzenie, [In] Gut P., Kreatywna rachunkowość a fałszowanie sprawozdań
finansowych, Wyd. C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2006.
[15] Skrzypek E., Zarządzanie wiedzą i kapitałem intelektualnym w warunkach globalizacji,
<www.instytut.info/pliki/Book1/7-Skrzypek.pdf>.
[16] Chmielecki M., Delivering business presentations across cultures, „Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie”, Vol. XII, Issue 5, 2011, pp. 199-210.
[17] Chmielecki M., Delivering business presentations across cultures, „Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie”, Vol. XII, Issue 5, 2011, pp. 199-210.
[18]See Kinney T., Knowledge management, intellectual capital and adult learning, „Adult Learning”, No. 10(2), 1998; Tiwana A., Knowledge Management Toolkit. The Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge
Management System, „Person Education”, 2002; Murray P., Myers A., The Facts abort Knowledge. Study of the Cranfield School of Management, <http://www.info-strategy.com/knowsur1/>, <http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/>.
[19] Chmielecki M., Delivering business presentations across cultures, „Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie”, Vol. XII, Issue 5, 2011, pp. 199-210.
[20] Andriessen D., On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: A textual analysis, „Journal of Intellectual Capital”, Vol. 7, 2006, pp. 93-110.
[21] Andriessen D. G., On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: A textual analysis, „Journal of Intellectual Capital”, No. 7, 2006, pp. 93-110.
[22] Lev B., Intangibles: management, measurement and reporting, The Brookings Institution, Washington 2001.
[23] Sveiby K.E., The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco 1997; Edvinsson L., Malone M.S., Intellectual capital: The proven way to establish your company's real value by measuring its hidden brainpower, HarperBusiness, London 1997; Stewart T.A., Intellectual Capital, The new wealth of organizations, Doubleday, New York 1997.
[24] Beijerse R., Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a phenomenon, „Journal of Knowledge Management”, Vol., 3 No. 2, 1999, pp. 94-110.
[25] Cabrera A., Cabrera E.F., Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas, „Organization Studies”, No. 23(5), 2002, pp. 687–710.
[26] Lev B., Intangibles: management, measurement and reporting, The Brookings Institution, Washington 2001.
[27] Lee C., Yang J., Knowledge value chain, „The Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 19, No. 9, 2000, pp. 783-794.
[28] Syed-Ikhsan S., Rowland F., Knowledge management in public organizations: a study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer, „Journal of Knowledge Management”, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2004, pp. 95-111.
[29] Al-Alawi A.I., The practice and challenges of knowledge management in financial sectors in Bahrain, „Asian Journal of Information Systems”, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, pp. 101-107.