(article continued below ...)
Research literature shows a strong link between knowledge management and
the creation of a sustainable competitive advantage, because of the tacit
nature of an organization's knowledge (Gupta & McDaniel, 2002). The growing
body of literature on KM has tended to emphasize the technical aspects at
the expense of the people management aspects and it is indicative in itself
that the vast majority of literature resides within the Information
Technology (IT) field (Bank, 1996; Cole-Gomolski, 1997; Finerty, 1997).
Scarbrough et al. s (1999) IPD report provided an extensive overview of
existing literature which demonstrated a growing gap in the literature in
term! s of people issues in favor of a concern with the technological and
system aspects. Likewise Johanessen et al. (1999) explore the inadequacy of
firms investing in new technology hoping that KM will simply emerge as a
result. Instead they suggest it is the employees themselves who will be the
impetus behind the transition from functional organizations to knowledge
organizations.
Fundamentally frequent KM attempts end in failure. The assumption that
knowledge is an object, and can be codified and distributed underpins the
linked field of computer science and information systems. As a result of
this knowledge management has been closely tied to ICT. Yet even within the
computer science fields, it is increasingly recognized that most current
software for knowledge management have more to do with new ways of storing
and communicating information than with actual ways in which people create,
acquire and use knowledge (Milton et al., 1999). Likewise as McDermott
points out, using ICT rather than a solution to knowledge management may
represent the great trap in knowledge management (McDermott, 1999: p. 104).
An analysis of current academic literature on obstacles to knowledge
management reveal three main groups of factors flaws in the organizational
process, misconceptions of the role of technology in the process and lastly,
and that which I seek to elucidate as a principle component a large
disregard of the importance of the human factor in achieving a successful
knowledge-sharing and knowledge managing culture.
A failure to understand clearly the terms of reference (i.e. what is
knowledge management?) fogs entirely the picture of what factors can enhance
or reduce the chances of successful knowledge management within an
organization. As Thomas, Kellogg and Erickson (2003) point out the view of
knowledge management as a passive, fact-storing procedure which ignores the
context in which knowledge is embedded and which relies solely on
information technologies is a common misconception of the whole process. Soo,
Devinney. Midgley and Deering (2000) likewise stress that the knowledge
management process is not something simple which can be bolted on to
conventional business models as mere storage models.
The vast majority of academic research into knowledge management,
concludes, as do Dominguez, Laverde, Lizzaralde and Arregui (2003) that
while there is a general difficulty for companies to explain what they mean
when they use the term knowledge management, they are in a position to
identify common aspects such as the sharing of knowledge and of transforming
individual into organizational knowledge. They admit, however, that a lack
of clarity over the concept while generating certain confusion, has led to a
greater flexibility in its application in the private sector. It simply
means different things in different contexts.
De Jarnett (1996) states that
knowledge management is knowledge creation, which is followed by knowledge
interpretation, knowledge dissemination and use, and knowledge retention and
refinement.
Brooking (1997), however, in his definition stresses that
knowledge management is the activity which is concerned with strategy and
tactics to manage human centered assets while Quintas et al (1997) in their
definition claim that KM is the process is critically managing knowledge to
meet existing needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge
assets and to develop new opportunities.
As Ariely (2003) points out even
nowadays there is no full consensus on definitions and perceptions of
knowledge management. She concludes, however, that the differing definitions
expose the problems industry is having with defining and commonly
understanding such a combined term. For this reason she favors the
definition by Brooks (2000) of organizational knowledge management through
correlating the aim of KM in the organization with those of the organization.
Ultimately the test is the success achieved in enabling knowledge creation
rather than managing it. As von Krogh (2000) points out the dilemma can
perhaps be best approached by managing the processes relating to the domain
of knowledge management rather than presuming to manage the knowledge
itself.
Knowledge management is inextricably linked to the sharing of knowledge
between individuals and to the collaborative processes involved. The factors
and environments which enhance this all relate to the human factor in the KM
process.
