According to Spek and Spijkervet (1997) data are symbols needed to be interpreted, when meanings are attached or interpretation is given to data, it turns into information, and knowledge is something that enables individuals to allocate meaning to generate information. Davenport (1997) states that data are straightforward observation of various circumstances of the world, when this data have some relevance and purpose, it becomes information, and out of these stocks of information valuable information is knowledge is valuable. Earlier, Wiig (1993) identified information from knowledge suggesting that information contains data and facts arranged for the purpose of describing a certain situation while knowledge contains beliefs and truths, concepts and perspectives, expectations and judgments, methodologies and know-how. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), information consists of a flow of meaningful messages and it becomes knowledge when belief and commitment is crafted because of these messages. Nonaka and Takeuchi further suggest that information becomes knowledge (a justified belief) through the involvement of human factor.
This debate does not reach an end though. Prusak & Davenport (2004) asserts that dynamism in the environment require role of wisdom other than knowledge. Earlier, Zeleny (1987) embed wisdom in the hierarchy of the information sciences as DIKW (data–information–knowledge–wisdom). Firestone and McElroy (2003) reject the hierarchical structure of the DIKW pyramid in favour of a “knowledge life cycle” in which “data and knowledge are made from pre-existing information”.
At least two observations can be made from the above statements and definitions.
First, if we put in the hierarchy knowledge is at top. Further, according to Nonaka and Takeuchi, it is the human factor that turns information into knowledge. Tuomi (1999), however, reverses the order of this hierarchy in favour of data at the top of the hierarchy arguing that this is the knowledge when applied creates data and information.
Second, it can be further argued that human factor is involved in one way or the other in data, information and knowledge at various stages, and purpose and relevance cannot be detached from all of these forms. Similarly, in various contexts and for various purposes and for different individuals, groups or organizations depending on the context, purpose, and suitability, data, information and knowledge can have different meanings. Data in one context can be knowledge and in the other context, it can be a mere observation. Same is the case with knowledge and information. So, according to our point of view, data, information and knowledge are difficult to standardized keeping in view the complexity involved in the concepts. For the organization to benefit from the knowledge management initiatives, they need to clearly define the purpose and manage all the three keeping in view their relevance and importance to the purpose (Ndlela and du Toit, 2001).
Knowledge has been further categorized as objective or subjective; or tacit or explicit. Polanyi (1967) discussed this division of knowledge as
2.2.1 Explicit knowledge
The dimension of human knowledge that can be codified, formalized, expressed in form of data, books, manuals, specification and can be transferred.
2.2.2Tacit knowledge
Action based dimension of knowledge that is hard to formalize, highly personal and hard to transfer.
According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge can be converted from one form to the other (explicit to tacit and vice versa) and can be transferred from one person to another person. While upward spiral shows that knowledge shared from the individuals spreads among groups, organizations, networks and societies etc. Though, Tsoukas (2003) argues the idea of such conversion by rejecting such simplistic classification.
Some support can be found from Polanyi (1966) who insists that knowledge cannot always be gained by an objective flow of processes, practices or events, and its outcome is hard to determine scientifically because knowledge is grounded in human conditions such as sense of beauty and passion. This means that knowledge is not as simple to manage, transfer or convert from one form to another. So for managing knowledge itself require innovation and exploration of new ways (Gao et al., 2003). Implicit knowledge, another form of tacit knowledge, is the kind of knowledge. Tsoukas’ (1996) concept of distributed agency reveals that knowledge does not exist in integrated or concentrated form instead it is distributed among societies and communities and depends upon the context.
2.3 Knowledge Management (KM)
Snowden (2002) describes KM as “identification, optimization, and active management of intellectual assets, either in the form of explicit knowledge held in artefacts or as trait knowledge possessed by individuals or communities”. Swan et al., (1999) explains KM as source of binding together and exploiting the “intellectual and social capital of individuals in order to improve organizational learning capabilities, recognizing that knowledge, and not simply information, is the primary source of an organization’s innovative potential”.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) define KM as a “systematic approach to utilize the expert’s comments to improve innovation, responsiveness, productivity, and capability of an organization”.
According to von Krogh (1998), KM refers to identify and leverage the collective knowledge in an organization for the purpose of helping the organization to compete. Hackbarth (1998) suggest that KM purports the innovativeness and responsiveness.
Nevertheless, a variety of definitions can be found in the extant literature based on various assumptions about knowledge and its types, and a range of topics in diverse contexts with distinct perspectives have been studied under the concept ‘‘knowledge management’’. Gao et al., (2008) categorize them into hard and soft track perspectives. According to Gao et al., (2008), hard track approaches, methodologies, tools and theories relate to either hard technology such as application of science to commercial and industrial objectives or soft technology such as information, databases, software, and copyrights. In fact, the hard perspective seems to have an obvious objective criterion in relation to their professional communities. Knowledge management for these theorists is an sophisticated way or level to discuss product and services, development and innovation, R & D, technology, knowledge discovery using databases, data mining, groupwares, expert systems, knowledge repositories or decision support systems (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Davenport, 1997, Gao., et al., 2008). Abstract, capture, store, organize, transform, transfer, reuse, diffuse, codify are the typical terms which this hard group have been using.
For the hard theorists, KM seems equivalent to an IT-based management system with the fundamental assumption information and communication technologies accelerate the knowledge flow across the organization and offer an advanced tool to stockpile and share / transfer knowledge (explicit).
On the other hand, soft group of theorists, emphasizing the importance of the tacit part of the knowledge, seems to be more focused on enabling and facilitating the ‘good’ space for knowledge creation such ‘Ba’, communities of practice and knowledge creating and sharing culture (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wenger, 1998). For the soft theorists, ICTs can only facilitate explicit knowledge creation and transfer through their communication and coordination. This concept poles apart from the hard view that knowledge cannot be separated from ICTs (Holsapple, 2005). However, these both schools have different viewpoints because of the assumption that knowledge can be separated as tacit and explicit. Therefore, explicit knowledge can be managed through ICTs such as internet, intranet, groupwares etc. While to manage tacit knowledge, communities of practice, ‘Ba’ and knowledge sharing and learning culture is necessary.
Though, the importance of the ICTs and various soft practices cannot be ignored for managing knowledge yet it seems difficult to strategies KM according to these categories of knowledge by dividing it into explicit and tacit part because as suggested by Tsoukas (2003), knowledge cannot be separated in parts (even if we ignore the conversion of knowledge from one from to another). Further, above discussion also shows that ambiguities involved in knowledge, KM, and lack of consensus makes it difficult to make particular strategies for the tacit and explicit knowledge separately. Therefore, it would be wise that ICTs and soft practices and mechanisms of knowledge management need to be coordinated without making efforts to differentiate them. Our point of view is further supported by Tsoukas (1996), who suggests that knowledge is context bound and is hard to be found in integrated form rather distributed in the communities and societies.
2.4 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)
According to Alavi (2001; 115) KMS refer to
“a class of information systems applied to managing organizational knowledge. That is, they are IT-based systems developed to support and enhance the organizational processes of knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and application”.
However, on the bases of previous discussion, we believe that KMS not necessarily are based on only information technologies because face to face discussions, meetings, trainings etc are also important component of KM (Mason and Leek, 2008).
So, all ICTs involved in KM along with social and cultural facets of KM , in fact, play vital, integral role in KM (Malhotra 1999; Davenport and Prusak 1998). Having said this, IT role is important in various ways. Internet and Intranet, for instance, can be used to find an expert outside or inside the organization. Similarly, using knowledge repositories or internet, various recorded sources can be found with much ease. Further, intranet and internet inside and outside the organization play vital role in knowledge sharing, accessing the information, working in virtual teams. Indeed, roles of IT are numerous in this context. Three common applications of IT include coding and sharing best practices, creating corporate knowledge directories, and creating knowledge networks (Mason and Leek, 2008).
Buckman Laboratories used an online forum where users used to comment in chronological order. According to Zack (1999), this practice enabled to Buckman to change the base of the competition, going further from selling the products to include problem solving for the customers’ chemical treatment problem. Through knowledge sharing within the firm and with the dealers, Ford is as cited by Gazeau (1998) reportedly believed to reduce the product development time from 36 to 24 months, and delivery time squeezed from 50 to 15 days.
KM using a variety of KMS technologies including modern technologies and keeping in view the importance of the human resources (Liker, 2004) enhances coordination. It develops a culture that helps the people to share and create new knowledge. KM helps to store, capture, and reuse the individual and organizational knowledge (Daveport and Prusak, 1998). KMS helps to identify, work and share knowledge in virtual teams. KMS through communities of practice, meetings, and discussions whether face to face crafts trust and collaboration at various levels of the organization and in the inter-firm networks (Mason and Leek, 2008)
Therefore, keeping in view the purpose, nature of knowledge and need of the hour, organization can use the KMS, combination of ICTs and human resources to achieve the purpose.
However, according to Dyer and Hatch (2005), misuse of ICTs and too much focus on people, can be problem in the way of achieving organizational goals. Further, lack of motivation, lack of users’ involvement at the time of developing and implementing the KMS, short term focus, lack of resources, lack of top management support and many other factors all hinder the KM and KMS to achieve the intended outcomes.
Case Study of Boeing
Founded in 1916 in Puget Sound, Washington, Boeing had become a leading producer of military and commercial aircraft. During the journey towards leadership, Boeing undertook a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions to become the world’s largest, most diversified aerospace company. It serves more its customers in more than 90 countries and 70 percent of commercial airplane revenue historically from customers outside the United States
Manufacturing, service and technology partnerships with companies around the world have led Boeing way towards its current position including contracts with 22,000 suppliers and partners globally with research, design and technology‐development centers and programs in multiple countries. With headquartered in Chicago, Boeing employs more than 160,000 people across the United States (49 states) and in 70 countries.
3.1 Need for knowledge Management
Knowledge management matters to Boeing for many reasons. Among them few are
Managing large number of employees, dealing with contractors, suppliers, and customers remained a huge challenge. Retains expertise of employees who leave the company matters a lot in the situation when the company believes that
Approximately 10% of what a corporation knows resides in corporate repositories……the rest walks out the door every day (Boeing Frontiers Magazine, October 2007).
Need and desire to shares expertise, best practices and lessons learned across the enterprise necessitated KM. Avoiding reinventions and acceleration of innovation has been the amongst the goals. Bridging communication gap with suppliers has been amongst the top priorities for Boeing.
Further,
the demand for knowledge management will only accelerate as the post–World War II “baby boom” generation looks toward retirement. The oldest members of the U.S. baby‐boom generation are in their early 60s. Indeed, today 18 percent of Boeing employees are eligible to retire, while another 19 percent will be eligible in five years, and another 40 percent in 10 years, according to Boeing Human Resources. (Boeing Frontiers Magazine, 2007)
Further, to maintain this leadership innovation in practices was necessary and that innovation in practices has come in form of KM
3.2 KM and Boeing
3.2.1 Vision
“Knowledge without Borders”
We are a borderless environment where knowledge is instantly leveraged for innovation, competitive advantage, sustainable performance, and enhanced productivity. This environment empowers an adaptable and agile workforce to rapidly respond to market drivers and anticipate customer needs.
3.3 KM Model of Boeing
3.4 KM Wheel
3.5 Holistic Approach toward KM and KM enabling Technologies
Boeing has used a holistic approach towards KM. They have a balanced emphasis on people processes and technology as suggested by (Liker, 2004) and Dyer and Hatch (2006). Following are the Enabling Technologies being used by Boeing.
3.5.1 People to People
Social networks, Expertise locators, Collaborative tools, Community of practice portals
3.5.2 People to Process
Knowledge discovery, smart work flows, JIT content delivery, no search
3.5.3 People to Content
Knowledge discovery, intelligent push (agents), transparent search
3.6 Tools/Technology/Techniques to Transfer Knowledge
Groupware, chat, discussion databases, video, audio, reports, knowledge fairs, Wiki and blog, Brown Bags, chalkboard, Communities of Practice, mentoring, storytelling, storyboards, coaching, One-on-One and One-to-Many (Real-Time Person-to-Person and Media based), personal training and education programs, passive repositories (documents), active, computer-based work aids, computer-based training, case based reasoning systems (CBR), complex reasoning systems (KBS), neural nets, virtual reality systems, procedures manuals, text books, white papers are among the major practices taking place to achieve the desired objectives. Further, job rotations (rotate novices and experts), apprenticing programs, on-site experts as part of team (Pooling of expertise), expert networks, and collaborative teams also play vital role in the entire practice of KM
4. Benefits of KM: An analysis
In the past, Boeing wrote detailed specifications for each part and asked suppliers to build to plan accordingly.
Today, suppliers, co‐designers plan from scratch and deliver complete sub‐assemblies to Boeing’s factory, where a single plane can be snapped together like Lego blocks, in as little as 3 days (Boeing Frontiers Magazine, 2007)
Boeing has balanced focus on technologies, people and processes. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), this approach helps to avoid over-emphasis on technology resulting in avoiding failures in KM projects as it has been the case with many large and small organizations. Equal focus on people helps in many ways. For instance it helps the personal and professional growth of the employees helping in individual learning resulting in increasing the absorptive capacity of the individuals and organizations, and finally enhance the organizational learning (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).
Boeing has used the technologies to facilitate people and processed in the course of managing knowledge and this is in line with Liker (Gao et al., 2008) who argues, discussing Toyota’s practices, that this approach creates sense of belongingness among the employees and craft a culture of learning which have far reaching results in terms of matching technologies, people and processes with the vision and the objectives.
5. Recommendations
- Managing knowledge is important in the current dynamic and competitive business environment. However, selection of enablers of KM is important.
- Balanced focused on people, processes and technologies is vital
- And this selection should be in accordance with the vision and objectives of the organization intended to be achieved through KM
6. Conclusion
During recent years, previous studies (Choi & Poon, 2008) suggest have found the central place in the hearts of the organizational activities at various level resulting in the evolution of the direction for the organizations to be knowledge intensive rather than being capital, labour, and/or information intensive.
However, knowledge is a multifaceted concept and has no consensus even on its definition. In fact, many studies based on ontological debates in outlining theoretical definition of the concepts knowledge and KM, and that, arguably, how these concepts can be applied in an ideal business environment. Knowledge is believed object (McQueen 1998), it must have potential to empower the future action (Carlsson et al. 1996), it enhances this view that it must provide the ability to facilitating the choice of right information in decision making by using learning and experience capability (Watson, 1999), a “process” of knowing and acting all together (Zack 1999), a source of knowing (Schubert et al. 1998). In the same vein, difference of opinion exists on how knowledge should managed, what are the enables or sources of managing explicit and tacit knowledge, and how particularly technologies can help in managing knowledge (See Nonaka and Tackeuchi, 1995; Davenport and Prusak, 1998, Gao, et al., 2008)
Nevertheless, review of the extant literature and discussion and analysis of the case study shows that managing knowledge is full of complexities and no standardized process or practice can ensure the management of knowledge. The purpose of managing knowledge, context and processes that can facilitate its management can be different and therefore can require different vision, resources, and distinct efforts and practices. However, it is important that balanced emphasis on people, technology and processes is required to match these enables of KM to the vision and objectives of the KM and of the organization (Gao, et al., 2008).
References
Alavi, M (2001), “Review: knowledge management and Knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and Research issues”, MIS Quarterly, 25, 1 pp107-136
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A., & Sabherwal, R.,( 2004), Knowledge Management, Person Education Ltd
Boeing Frontiers Magazine, (2007),
accessed on 9/01/2010
Carlsson, S.A., 2004, Using critical realism in IS research, In The Handbook of Information Systems Research (edsWhitman, M,E., and Woszczynski, A.B.,) pp 323–338, Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing
Carrillo, P., 2004, “Managing knowledge: lessons from the oil and gas sector”, Construction Management and Economics, 22, pp631–642
Choi, B., Poon, S.K., & Davis, J.G., 2008, “Effects of knowledge management strategy on organizational performance: a complementarity theory-based approach”, Omega, 36, PP235–251
Davenport, T.H (1997), Information Ecology: Mastering the Information and Knowledge Environment, New York: Oxford University Press
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L., 1998, Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.W., (2006), “Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships”, Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp 701-719
Fan, Z.P., Feng, B., Sun, Y.H., & Ou, W., 2009, “Evaluating knowledge management capability of organizations: a fuzzy linguistic method”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp3346–3354
Firestone, J.W., & McElroy, M.W., (2003), Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science
Foss, N., (2007), “The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges and characteristics” Organization, 14, 1, pp29-52
Gao,F., Li, M., and Clarke, S., (2008), “Knowledge, management, and knowledge management in business operations”, 1 Journal Of Knowledge Management 2, 2 pp3-17
Grant, R, M., (1996) “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: rganizational Capability as Knowledge Integration”, Organization Science, 7, 4 pp375-387
Hackbarth, G, (1998), "The Impact of Organizational Memory on IT Systems," in Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, E. Hoadley and I Benbasat (eds,), pp588-590
Holsapple, C. (2005), ‘‘The inseparability of modern knowledge management and computer-based technology’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 1, pp42-52
Hsieh, P.J., Lin, B., & Lin, C., (2009), “The construction and application of knowledge navigator model (KNMTM): An evaluation of knowledge management maturity”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp4087–4100.
Liao, S.H., (2002)“Knowledge management technologies and applications – literature review from 1995 to 2002”, Expert Systems with Applications, 25, pp155–164
Liker, J (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill
Malhotra, Y, (1999), “Beyond 'Hi-Tech Hidebound' Knowledge Management; Strategic Information Systems for the New World of Business”, Working Paper, BRINT Research Institute
McQueen, R.,(1998) “Four Views of Knowledge and Knowledge Management,” in Proceedings of the Fourth of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, E. D. Hoadley and I. Benbasat (Eds.), Baltimore, MD, pp. 609-611.
Ndlela, L.T. and du Toit, S. A. (2001), “Establishing a knowledge management programme for competitive advantage in an enterprise”, International Journal of Information Management, 21, pp151-165
Ngai, E. W. T., & Chan, E. W. C., (2005), “Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP”, Expert Systems with Applications, 2, 94, pp889–899
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H., (1995), “The knowledge-creating company”, New York: Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M., (1967), The Tacit Dimension, New York: Anchor
Prusak, L., & Davenport, T., (2004), “Who are the gurus’ gurus?”, Harvard Business Review, 81, 12, pp14–16
Schubert, P., D. Lincke & Schmid, B., (1998), A global knowledge medium as a virtual community: the NetAcademy concept. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference of AIS, 618-620
Snowden, D.,(2002), Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 2, pp100–111
Spek, R.d., and Spijkervet, A. (1997) Knowledge Management: Dealing Intelligently with Knowledge, Utrecht: Kenniscentrum CIBIT, 1997.
Spender, J.C., (1996), “Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 1, pp63–78
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D., (1999), “Knowledge management and innovation: networks and networking”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 4, pp262–275
Nicolini, D., Gherardi, G., Yanow, D., 2003, Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach, M.E. Sharpe
Tsoukas, H., 1996, “The Firm as Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach”, Strategic Management Journal, 17, PP11-25.
Tsoukas, H., (2003), “Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (eds Easterby-Smith, M.,& Lyles, M.A), pp 410–427, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Tuomi, I., (1999) “Data is More Than Knowledge Implications of the Reversed Knowledge Hierarchy for Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory”,Journal of Management Information Systems,16, 3 pp107-121
von Krogh. G., (1998), “Care in Knowledge Creation" California Management Review, 40, 3, pp133-153
Wiig, K.M., (2000), “Knowledge Management: An Emerging discipline rooted in long history, eds Despres, C. & Chauvel, D. Knowledge Horizons, Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Watson, R,. (1999), Data management: Databases and organizations, New York: John Wiley.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Zack, M. H. (1999) “Developing a Knowledge Strategy,” California Management Review (41:3), pp. 125-145.
Zeleny, M., (1987), “Management support systems: towards integrated knowledge management”, Human Systems Management, 7, 1, pp 59–70.
