Universities allow for externalisation and the creation of tacit to explicit knowledge to happen. The interacting ba, otherwise known as dialoguing ba allows for this conversion to take place through the use of conversation, thus tutorials are this time ideal environments for the creation of this knowledge as they again allow for students to exchanges ideas and reflect even with input from lecturers so the ideas can be codified. Lecturers are also able to give examples of their own experiences and relate them to theories, for example in a marketing lecture the lecturer may be able to use an incident that happened in industry and apply it to theory and makes it more understandable and attainable to the student. In relation to Nonaka and Konno’s model the university seems to provide an ideal environment for externalisation, however much debate arose from their work as to whether tacit knowledge can be made explicit (this will be discussed in part 3) and the problem ‘codifying’ such knowledge. Most critics however, are in agreement that the conversion of tacit to explicit is vital to knowledge creation and tutorials are supposed to allow for interaction amongst students and lecturers, and so provide a gateway where innovation can happen.
Combination knowledge is the conversion of explicit knowledge into explicit knowledge, it relates to the cyber or systemising ba where by ICT methods provide a way of combining existing and new forms of explicit knowledge to create a different or new type (Nonaka and Konno 1998). Blackboard can be seen as a way the university provides this virtual environment, as it provides the facility of allowing students to see the lecture notes that lecturers have created in a different format along with other related material showing the explicit knowledge delivered in the lecture in a different medium.
Internalisation is the process of converting explicit to tacit knowledge, this is done through the exercising ba where by explicit knowledge is put into everyday use (Nonanka and Konno 1998) The result of this process is that the knowledge becomes a part of an individuals cognitive resources (Hussi, 2004) )and is therefore built into the individual. A university does not provide the opportunity for an individual to test their knowledge in industry and hence does not allow for the internalisation process to take place.
In terms of Nonaka and Konno’s models, universities strive to provide an environment for the creation of knowledge for students. They indeed provide the students with the facilities necessary (by acting as ‘knowledge factory’) to increase their knowledge and in turn value as a product. By also considering the definition of knowledge mentioned earlier and how far universities meet the characteristics it detailed, it has been observed that universities provide interpretation and reflection as shown by the type of knowledge that can be created through tutorials and lectures i.e. externalisation. Students have increased in knowledge ‘value’ as they leave the ‘factory’ to a certain extent. It can also be argued that they are not a finished ‘product’ as the internalisation stage has not yet been completed so the student does not have experience or context. Allee explains, ‘Knowledge is information to which intent has been attached’ therefore has the university missed the most crucial process as it could be argued that there is no intent or purpose to astudent knowledge yet.
Explain some of the processes that a university might use to manage its knowledge successfully.
A university is involved in the way knowledge is ‘produced, stored, disseminated, and authorised’ (Reid, 2008). As a concept knowledge is quite intangible, it makes it difficult to manage. The purpose of a university is to create, transfer and store knowledge so that I can be accessed by students. Focusing on the elements involved in knowledge transfer and storage, this will identify the areas of knowledge that can be managed. The transfer of knowledge is impacted by these four interrelated parts:
- The knowledge
- The transmitter
- The receiver
- The organisational setting. (Connel, Lecture 4)
The knowledge that a university produces can be explicit or tacit and refers to resources such as lectures, lecture notes, books, and journals. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is easily recorded and can take the form of books and journals that the university poses. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is knowledge that is transferred by the lecturer and is conveyed through lectures and classes. The library manages most of the universities explicit knowledge through operations such as ‘Webcat’, which not only provides a way of looking up the physical books available in the library but it also organises the vast number of online resources such as e-books and journals which can be accessed through Athens login. It offers access to many databases over the library web page for students to gain information such as key notes and LexisNexis Butterworth. As tacit knowledge is not easily codified there are not many processes that can be implemented to manage it. However the source of the knowledge (i.e. the lecturer) can be managed.
Lecturers are the main transmitters of knowledge and as mentioned above the source of tacit knowledge in a university; they create the lecture slides and deliver lectures. As they are the main transmitters of knowledge their delivery and content of lectures needs to be to the highest standard to ensure that students are receptive and clear about the knowledge they are being given. Ways to monitor and manage lecturers would be through feedback forms, where at the end of modules students can give feedback on how appropriate course material was and how well the lectures were delivered. Another process that can be used is by having ‘sit ins’ where other lecturers mark their colleagues on how well they think they have delivered a lecture and offer possible areas for improvement. Other transmitter of knowledge are authors of journals and books.. see journal.
The receivers of knowledge at universities are students. As students have free choice as to whether to come to university they have no real obligation other to themselves to turn up to lectures and to complete their work so that they can achieve a good degree. This makes it difficult to manage because how much knowledge an individual gains from university is down to personal motivation. There are processes that universities can put in place to incentivise and help in the transfer of knowledge to the student. As mentioned above; by ensuring the delivery of the lecture is in an easy to listen to format so that students are more likely to be receptive, also by ensuring there are relevant and up to date resources available in the library should a student want make use of them. Methods such as penalising students with poor attendance could also be another way to incentivise students to attend lectures. Exams could be seen as a process to manage their knowledge.
In recent years IT has become an integral part of the ways University operate, not only in terms of admin and the organisation of universities but also as another knowledge resource. The IT facilities that universities have to offer are ways of integrating the three elements of knowledge transfer discussed above. Facilities such as Blackboard provide the opportunity for students to look up lecture slides, act as an informal methods of communication between the lecturer and the student, allow for new and relevant material or links can be posted on blackboard thus interlinking the student, the lecturer and the knowledge Universities are also now introducing pod casts and in the future possible pod casts which can allow for students to listen to lectures without actually being present in the lecture theatre but still gaining the same knowledge. This facility is also likely to be made available on operations such blackboard again acting as an interlink between the three elements. This use of IT can be seen as a creating a cyber ba, Nonaka and Konno (1998) see the use of ba’s as key to managing knowledge, “Knowledge is manageable in so far as leaders embrace and foster the dynamism of knowledge creation. The role of top management is as the providers of ba for knowledge creation.” It is also a way of managing the third generation of knowledge management as it allows for the explicit knowledge storage of the first generation view of knowledge management to be combined with people based systems that the second generation of knowledge management was based upon.
Much of the future of knowledge management will be based upon innovation and creativity therefore the university will have to find processes to manage these tacit forms of knowledge.
(iii) Describe some of the reasons why the knowledge that a university produces might be difficult to manage? (20%)
Knowledge can be difficult to manage because of problems or inconsistencies that arise during the transfer of knowledge, particularly those that may arise between the lecturer and student or amongst students themselves.
Connel identified 7 reasons why knowledge transfer can become challenging:
- Tacit-Explicit
- Motivation
- Trust
- Expertise/understanding
- Absorptive capacity
- Stickiness
- Geography
Tacit knowledge can be difficult to manage mainly due to the ongoing debate of whether tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit. Many theorists argue that tacit knowledge is personal and private to an individual (), ,). It is therefore hard to transfer as many people may not realise that they possess the knowledge themselves or because it is difficult to relate an experience that was significant to an individual into a way that understood by everyone without losses in meanings or misinterpretation occurring. Lecturers in particular may experience this problem when trying to turn their own experiences into a transferable form of knowledge where the message can be understood by everyone, as sometimes the message is only clear with understanding of its context. Szulanski (1996) argue that this concept of ‘stickiness’ can be unstuck although it may take time and effort.
Motivation is an issue with the knowledge that a university produces as despite lecturers being highly motivated to share their knowledge as it is their purpose at a university, students also gain knowledge by sharing and learning amongst peers. Students however will have less motivation to share with each other as their main motivation is to achieve a high standard degree and will therefore be less willing to share their own knowledge as they may regard their peers as competition.
Having made the assumption that lecturers are motivated to share their knowledge with students another issue that can arise from the transferal of their knowledge is trust. The knowledge transferred by lecturers and from materials such as journals and books is based on the assumption of trust. Lecturers are assumed to be experts in their field and students are trusting that the material being taught to them is valuable and correct. However particularly in the case of tacit knowledge it cannot be guaranteed that the message that is being conveyed has not been distorted somehow by ‘stickiness’ Also unknowingly a lecturer may become disrupted by power where by they feel that because they are such an expert in their field they do not need to research or acquire updated dated knowledge, meaning that students would be missing out on other forms of knowledge.
One key reason why knowledge is hard to manage in a university, which is particularly applicable to the dynamic environment of today’s world, is the vast amounts of explicit forms of knowledge that are available, and the rate at which it is continually updated, changed and new forms of knowledge created. The university library has the job of ensuring that journals and databases are considering the numbers of different journals and databases which is a very time consuming and resource constraining task. Although they have processes in place to ensure that information is up to date it is hard to guarantee, a problem that is likely to escalade as more and more forms of knowledge are found.
References
Ambrosini V and Bowman C (2001) Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies 38(6), 811–829.
Argyris and Schon (1978) IN Connel C (2007) Lecture 3.
Connel (2007)
Daneshgar F and Parirokh M, Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2007) 5, 22–33. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500127
Davenport et al…(1998) IN Connel C (2007) Lecture 1, slide 8.
Hussi, T “Reconfiguring knowledge management – combining intellectual capital, intangible assets and knowledge creation”, Journal of Knowledge Management (2004) Vol 8, Issue 2
Jashapara A (2004) Knowledge Management; An Introduction. Prentice-Hall, London.
Johannessen J-A, Olaisen J and Olsen B (2001) Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International Journal of Information Management 21, 3–20.
Nonaka, I., Konno, N. (1998), "The concept of ‘ba’: building foundation for knowledge creation", California Management Review, Vol. 40 No.3, pp.40-54.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) , accessed 7th Jan 2008
Reid, I, accessed on 1/1/08.
Szulanski, 1996:Exploring internal stickiness:impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strategic Managament Journal, vol 17.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factory