Information technology (IT) is well known for causing evolutionary changes in almost every field. So has it in the field of Knowledge management. In context of web 2.0, it is recognized that technology has brought about massive changes in Knowledge Management with its new tools and approaches. But the controversy whether IT is the only significant facet in KM still continues.
KM is a combination of interrelated activities between people, processes and technology (Deepti, 2009). There are various steps in KM like knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and dissemination of knowledge within and outside an organisation. IT can help in most of these steps. For instance technology can assist in storage and retrieval of knowledge, or even in transfer of knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be efficiently managed with the help of IT, but technology is not very effective in the case of tacit knowledge (Jashapara, 2005).
During the 1990’s many organisations made huge investments in developing and using IT for KM, but most of them failed due to reasons unrelated to technology (Sinclair, 2007). This itself is an indicator that IT is not the only aspect of KM. It does require the interaction of people. Technology is just an enabler for knowledge management. IT makes the steps in knowledge management easier and facilitates the sharing and integration of knowledge. Again, it should be considered that technology can aid to store or retrieve knowledge and information but cannot create new knowledge; it is more static than dynamic in this phase (Borghoff, et.al., 1997)
According to Shehzad, IT supports KM with two basic approaches codification and personalisation. With codification explicit and organised knowledge can be stored in knowledge bases and with the aid of personalisation tacit knowledge can be shared. He gives the examples of knowledge expert directories and video conferencing techniques to support this argument. But one should also consider that KM does have a human aspect which technology cannot put into operation on its own. Hence there should not be too much of stress on the technology aspect in KM.
Analysis and conclusion
The article reflects the use of IT in KM but it also has specific concerns which cannot be dealt with IT alone. With the loads of information on the role and use of IT for knowledge management, it is also not possible to completely rule out the IT aspect in KM. KM needs the support of IT but does not rely purely only on IT. The managerial team needs to identity the necessity of technology in their organisation and work out a suitable combination of IT to match with the human characteristic within. “People work best with technical tools and functionality they feel in control of and that mimic their use of technology in their daily lives, e.g. instant messaging, texting, blogs, etc.” (Sinclair, 2007). This is the most appropriate approach that should be considered when using IT for Knowledge Management. Nevertheless, we should not forget that technology is created by humans and for their convenience and not to be ruled by it. Thus, we should use it for our convenience but acknowledge that the human factor is more essential.
References:
Borghoff U.M., Pareschi R (1997), “Information Technology for Knowledge Management”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Volume 3, Issue 8 , pg 835-842.
Hooff, B. V. D.; Huysman, M. (2009), “Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches”, Information and Management, Volume 46, Issue 1, pg 1-8.
Jashapura, A. (2005), “The emerging discourse of knowledge management: a new dawn for information science research?”, Journal of Information Science, Volume 31, Issue 2, pg 136-148.
Shehzad, (2007), “The Role of Information Technology in Knowledge Management”, Available online at http://www.associatedcontent.com accessed on 2nd April 2009
Sinclair, N. (2007), “The KM phoenix”, VINE: The Journal of Information and knowledge Management systems, Volume 37, Issue 3, pg 255-267
Vaidya, D. (2009), “Knowledge Management in a business milieu…..”, Available online at http://kms-deeptirohit.blogspot.com/ 3nd April 2009
Friday, 3 April 2009
Web 2.0 technologies: curse or boon???
Web 2.0 is one of the hottest, ever growing and a never ending topic. The term 2.0 was coined by Tim O’Reilly and MediaLive International after the end of the dot com age in a conference (O’ Reilly, 2005; Levy, 2009). This article gives a brief over view of Web 2.0, the new era that began after web 2.0, its support to Knowledge Management and finally examines the possible problems and issue with the dawn of web 2.0.
Web 2.0: Some say it is just a new buzz word, some fantasy it and some do not care about the name as long as it is useful. No complete definition or explanation has been given for web 2.0. Whatever reaction one may give to Web 2.0, it is something that no one can avoid. All of us are using it in some or the other form. Like it or hate it but you cannot avoid it. This is apparently the main feature of Web 2.0. With the beginning of Web 2.0 a major revolution took place and many new companies and applications were formed. Some of the features of Web 2.0 are: making the web a platform, forming a two way connection with individuals to one another and to the web as whole, provision of services instead of software, user involvement as co- developer, continuous innovation and improvement, cost effective, and many more. Also its use is not limited to PC platforms. Web 2.0 is believed to have caused and evolution in the web world.
Web 2.0 Introduced new concepts of socialising and connecting to the world. It certainly did make the world smaller and connected. Many old features of web 1.0 were replaced with new ones which provided more flexibility. Individual websites were replaced by Blogs, anyone could make their own blog and add their own thoughts on it. Web 2.0 provided a two way communication which transformed the role of users to co-developers. A real time monitoring of what features are used and how they were used could help websites to undergo continuous improvement. “The cost of information creation and publishing continues to be reduced and barriers against activities are lessened” (Akiyoshi, 2008). In other words the emergence of web 2.0 created an absolute new world for exploration, innovation, information and communication.
KM 2.0
Since the module is related to KM, we need to acknowledge the impact of Web 2.0 on KM. The advent of Web 2.0 has bought many new concepts like blogging, tagging, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, podcasting, social networking and Wiki. It is perfectly said by Niall Sinclair in his article ‘The KM phoenix’, that “the web 2.0 architecture is one designed to encourage participation”. Web 2.0 in many ways is supportive or one can say a type of a KM system. Some tools and concepts of web 2.0 can also be used to manage organisation knowledge. There is active participation of users in web 2.0 so does KM. Applications like blogging, social networking, RSS feeds can be of great use in KM. The concept of knowledge management lies in sharing, distribution, creation and dissemination of knowledge for different individuals by individuals. Web 2.0 follows exactly the same concept but on a larger level and not just organisational. Also in web 2.0 it is on an individual’s choice whether to share his knowledge or not. Tools like blogging though not very professional can be used to share tacit knowledge in organisations. It is noteworthy that KM and web 2.0 are similar in most of their principles. Therefore it would be appropriate to merge KM and web 2.0 to make KM 2.0.
Possible problems caused by Web 2.0
Just as every coin has two sides web 2.0 also has its own issues to be dealt with. There is so much of information available on the web that there are quality and quantity issues (Bawden, 2009). We all are aware that any simple search on google or any other search engines give thousands of hits which make it difficult to choose. The identity of and authority over the information available is reduced or in some cases lost. One of the concerns of web 2.0 is the loss of identity since some of the tools allow using anonymity even while adding or editing information. Since applications like Wikipedia allow anyone to make changes to the information it is difficult to keep track of the constant innovation. Also sometimes the tool of anonymity is wrongly used and false information is uploaded.
Another aspect bought into view is that the socialising and social networking concept introduced by web 2.0 is greatly being misused and even lost in some cases. Earlier contact would be made by emails but now the RSS feeds and other applications have completed changed the outlook. Since web 2.0 tools are easy to manage and get information for utilisation a more thoughtful and researched work is rarely done (Bawden, 2009). In some ways web 2.0 is making our minds and bodies mere lazy.
Overview and Perspective:
The article speaks about the advantages of Web 2.0 and the dramatic changes brought about by it. The tools and principles similar and/or supportive to KM are discussed. Also, the problems and issues raised by web 2.0 are clarified. On the whole it gives an indication that the advantages of web 2.0 are humongous but the disadvantages cannot be ignored. Some restriction should be placed on the abuse of web 2.0 technology or it could lead to severe consequences in future.
In regards to KM, web 2.0 has certainly proved to be a blessing in disguise. More and more tools of web 2.0 can prove to be useful in knowledge management. Opportunities are many for KM in web 2.0, they only need to be recognised and used appropriately. Web 2.0 has certainly caused an evolutionary revolution.
References:
Akiyoshi, M. (2008), “Knowledge sharing over the network”, pg 1512- 1514, Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com, accessed on 2nd April 2009.
Bawden, D., Robinson, L., (2009), “The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies”, Journal of Information Science, Volume 35, Issue 2, pg 180-191.
Levy, M. (2009), “WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge management, Volume 13, Issue 1, pg 120-134.
O’ Reilly, T. (2005), “What is Web 2.0”, Available online at http://www.oreillynet.com , Accessed on 2nd April 2009.
Sinclair, N. (2007), “The KM phoenix”, VINE: The Journal of Information and knowledge Management systems, Volume 37, Issue 3, pg 255-267
Web 2.0: Some say it is just a new buzz word, some fantasy it and some do not care about the name as long as it is useful. No complete definition or explanation has been given for web 2.0. Whatever reaction one may give to Web 2.0, it is something that no one can avoid. All of us are using it in some or the other form. Like it or hate it but you cannot avoid it. This is apparently the main feature of Web 2.0. With the beginning of Web 2.0 a major revolution took place and many new companies and applications were formed. Some of the features of Web 2.0 are: making the web a platform, forming a two way connection with individuals to one another and to the web as whole, provision of services instead of software, user involvement as co- developer, continuous innovation and improvement, cost effective, and many more. Also its use is not limited to PC platforms. Web 2.0 is believed to have caused and evolution in the web world.
Web 2.0 Introduced new concepts of socialising and connecting to the world. It certainly did make the world smaller and connected. Many old features of web 1.0 were replaced with new ones which provided more flexibility. Individual websites were replaced by Blogs, anyone could make their own blog and add their own thoughts on it. Web 2.0 provided a two way communication which transformed the role of users to co-developers. A real time monitoring of what features are used and how they were used could help websites to undergo continuous improvement. “The cost of information creation and publishing continues to be reduced and barriers against activities are lessened” (Akiyoshi, 2008). In other words the emergence of web 2.0 created an absolute new world for exploration, innovation, information and communication.
KM 2.0
Since the module is related to KM, we need to acknowledge the impact of Web 2.0 on KM. The advent of Web 2.0 has bought many new concepts like blogging, tagging, RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, podcasting, social networking and Wiki. It is perfectly said by Niall Sinclair in his article ‘The KM phoenix’, that “the web 2.0 architecture is one designed to encourage participation”. Web 2.0 in many ways is supportive or one can say a type of a KM system. Some tools and concepts of web 2.0 can also be used to manage organisation knowledge. There is active participation of users in web 2.0 so does KM. Applications like blogging, social networking, RSS feeds can be of great use in KM. The concept of knowledge management lies in sharing, distribution, creation and dissemination of knowledge for different individuals by individuals. Web 2.0 follows exactly the same concept but on a larger level and not just organisational. Also in web 2.0 it is on an individual’s choice whether to share his knowledge or not. Tools like blogging though not very professional can be used to share tacit knowledge in organisations. It is noteworthy that KM and web 2.0 are similar in most of their principles. Therefore it would be appropriate to merge KM and web 2.0 to make KM 2.0.
Possible problems caused by Web 2.0
Just as every coin has two sides web 2.0 also has its own issues to be dealt with. There is so much of information available on the web that there are quality and quantity issues (Bawden, 2009). We all are aware that any simple search on google or any other search engines give thousands of hits which make it difficult to choose. The identity of and authority over the information available is reduced or in some cases lost. One of the concerns of web 2.0 is the loss of identity since some of the tools allow using anonymity even while adding or editing information. Since applications like Wikipedia allow anyone to make changes to the information it is difficult to keep track of the constant innovation. Also sometimes the tool of anonymity is wrongly used and false information is uploaded.
Another aspect bought into view is that the socialising and social networking concept introduced by web 2.0 is greatly being misused and even lost in some cases. Earlier contact would be made by emails but now the RSS feeds and other applications have completed changed the outlook. Since web 2.0 tools are easy to manage and get information for utilisation a more thoughtful and researched work is rarely done (Bawden, 2009). In some ways web 2.0 is making our minds and bodies mere lazy.
Overview and Perspective:
The article speaks about the advantages of Web 2.0 and the dramatic changes brought about by it. The tools and principles similar and/or supportive to KM are discussed. Also, the problems and issues raised by web 2.0 are clarified. On the whole it gives an indication that the advantages of web 2.0 are humongous but the disadvantages cannot be ignored. Some restriction should be placed on the abuse of web 2.0 technology or it could lead to severe consequences in future.
In regards to KM, web 2.0 has certainly proved to be a blessing in disguise. More and more tools of web 2.0 can prove to be useful in knowledge management. Opportunities are many for KM in web 2.0, they only need to be recognised and used appropriately. Web 2.0 has certainly caused an evolutionary revolution.
References:
Akiyoshi, M. (2008), “Knowledge sharing over the network”, pg 1512- 1514, Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com, accessed on 2nd April 2009.
Bawden, D., Robinson, L., (2009), “The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies”, Journal of Information Science, Volume 35, Issue 2, pg 180-191.
Levy, M. (2009), “WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge management, Volume 13, Issue 1, pg 120-134.
O’ Reilly, T. (2005), “What is Web 2.0”, Available online at http://www.oreillynet.com , Accessed on 2nd April 2009.
Sinclair, N. (2007), “The KM phoenix”, VINE: The Journal of Information and knowledge Management systems, Volume 37, Issue 3, pg 255-267
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Knowledge Management in a business milieu…..
The hype Knowledge management (KM) has been tremendous since 1990’s (Bennet and Bennet, 2002, as cited by Brane Kalpicˇ and Peter Bernus, 2006). KM has become an integral part of every organisation that aspires to grow. It has become a very popular trend in most of the organisations. But one question remains unanswered and that is why and what is the need for KM? Organisations have always used tried to manage knowledge, but business purpose is rarely connected to KM. What is the importance or the relevance of KM in a business environment? This article gives some of the problems related to the realistic use of KM in a business environment.
Managing data is relatively easier with the use of technology. Data management systems can be employed for data storage and retrieval. But it is not so easy to manage knowledge, and alone technology cannot help in Knowledge Management. Technology can facilitate to manage explicit knowledge but is not good enough for tacit knowlegde. “Despite increasing sophistication of KM technologies, we are observing increasing failures of KM technology implementations” (Malhotra, 2004b, as cited by Malhotra, 2005).Various IT solutions have been futile to serve the purpose of KM for reasons not related to technology. Information, knowledge and data is collated from various levels for knowledge sharing, hence this data is not balanced. Therefore KM systems require an ontological orientation (Raghu, et.al. 2005). Knowledge management requires a combination and co-ordination of people, process and technology.
Organisational culture also plays a vital role in the success of KM. The biggest hitch in managing knowledge in an organisational environment is to bind various knowledge inputs (from different levels) together into logical organisational intellect and instil this intellect in the organization’s memory (Raghu et.al, 2005). People form a major part of an organisation and their involvement and interaction is crucial for Knowledge Management. The management in most organisations are practicing KM but do not interpret it correctly or do not follow the true approach for KM. The approach of KM is misleading in such circumstances. Knowledge is managed but they do not know why this knowledge is managed or how it can be utilised in a business framework. A business context is essential for KM and its efficient usage.
A collection of interacting and interrelated activities performed to achieve business goals is termed as ‘business processes’. They are carried out at various levels in different functional sectors in the interior and exterior of organisations. These business processes should be co-ordinated to achieve the business goal efficiently. A justification and rationale is provided to KM by business processes. KM interacts with business processes and hence indirectly with business goals, hence KM is imperative in a business perspective. Brane Kalpicˇ and Peter Bernus also point out that knowledge which is easily accessible has restricted ability to offer a competitive edge and may enhance a company’s competitive level.
Deepti’s point of view
The above write up gives some understanding of how and why organisation’s today fail to understand the pragmatic application of KM and hence eventually fail to use KM effectively. It is about time that organisations realise the power of Knowledge Management and apply it efficiently in practical business. It is worthless practicing KM without understanding the reasoning behind it. Also, how to manage knowledge in the commercial atmosphere is vital. Another aspect that should be considered is the inventory and expenditure for KM. An organisation should first analyse to what extent KM is useful for achieving their goals, decide how imperative it is and then plan the budget and resources accordingly. The lesson learnt from reading and researching carried out is remarkable and will be of significance for future application.
References:
Bhatt, G.D. (2002), “Management strategies for individual knowledge and organisation knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 6, Issue 1, pg 31-39.
Kalpic, B., Bernus, P., (2006), “Business process modeling through the knowledge management perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 10, Issue 3, pg 40-56.
Malhotra, Y. (2005), “Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, pg 7-28.
Raghu, T.S., Vinze, A. (2007), “A business process context for Knowledge Management”, Decision Support Systems, Volume 43, Issue 3, pg 1062-1079.
Managing data is relatively easier with the use of technology. Data management systems can be employed for data storage and retrieval. But it is not so easy to manage knowledge, and alone technology cannot help in Knowledge Management. Technology can facilitate to manage explicit knowledge but is not good enough for tacit knowlegde. “Despite increasing sophistication of KM technologies, we are observing increasing failures of KM technology implementations” (Malhotra, 2004b, as cited by Malhotra, 2005).Various IT solutions have been futile to serve the purpose of KM for reasons not related to technology. Information, knowledge and data is collated from various levels for knowledge sharing, hence this data is not balanced. Therefore KM systems require an ontological orientation (Raghu, et.al. 2005). Knowledge management requires a combination and co-ordination of people, process and technology.
Organisational culture also plays a vital role in the success of KM. The biggest hitch in managing knowledge in an organisational environment is to bind various knowledge inputs (from different levels) together into logical organisational intellect and instil this intellect in the organization’s memory (Raghu et.al, 2005). People form a major part of an organisation and their involvement and interaction is crucial for Knowledge Management. The management in most organisations are practicing KM but do not interpret it correctly or do not follow the true approach for KM. The approach of KM is misleading in such circumstances. Knowledge is managed but they do not know why this knowledge is managed or how it can be utilised in a business framework. A business context is essential for KM and its efficient usage.
A collection of interacting and interrelated activities performed to achieve business goals is termed as ‘business processes’. They are carried out at various levels in different functional sectors in the interior and exterior of organisations. These business processes should be co-ordinated to achieve the business goal efficiently. A justification and rationale is provided to KM by business processes. KM interacts with business processes and hence indirectly with business goals, hence KM is imperative in a business perspective. Brane Kalpicˇ and Peter Bernus also point out that knowledge which is easily accessible has restricted ability to offer a competitive edge and may enhance a company’s competitive level.
Deepti’s point of view
The above write up gives some understanding of how and why organisation’s today fail to understand the pragmatic application of KM and hence eventually fail to use KM effectively. It is about time that organisations realise the power of Knowledge Management and apply it efficiently in practical business. It is worthless practicing KM without understanding the reasoning behind it. Also, how to manage knowledge in the commercial atmosphere is vital. Another aspect that should be considered is the inventory and expenditure for KM. An organisation should first analyse to what extent KM is useful for achieving their goals, decide how imperative it is and then plan the budget and resources accordingly. The lesson learnt from reading and researching carried out is remarkable and will be of significance for future application.
References:
Bhatt, G.D. (2002), “Management strategies for individual knowledge and organisation knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 6, Issue 1, pg 31-39.
Kalpic, B., Bernus, P., (2006), “Business process modeling through the knowledge management perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 10, Issue 3, pg 40-56.
Malhotra, Y. (2005), “Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, pg 7-28.
Raghu, T.S., Vinze, A. (2007), “A business process context for Knowledge Management”, Decision Support Systems, Volume 43, Issue 3, pg 1062-1079.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
