1. How would you explain the emergence of Knowledge Management as a managerial phenomenon?

Knowledge Management (KM) can be defined as any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organisations (Quintas et al., 1997; Prusak, L., 1997). There are some reasons that appear to lead to the emergence of KM.

First, it is in part a reaction to the massive downsizing and BRP (Business Process Reengineering) of the 1990s (Zorn, T. E., 2001). On one hand, downsizing and BPR have led to a flatter and more decentralized organisational structure favouring knowledge sharing; on the other hand, as Swan et al. (1999) state, downsizing and BPR have resulted organisations in a loss of important forms of organisational knowledge embodied in middle management groups and embedded within functional or professional disciplines. KM is thus regarded as essentially correct in the attempt to reduce the threat of the loss of valuable knowledge assets.

Second, KM may be usefully viewed through the lens of management fashion (Abrahamson, L., 1997). Last 20 years saw waves of management ideas, or fashions: culture, TQM, BPR, shareholder value, etc. There is also a sense that the concept of KM is appealing because it is new, hot, "cutting edge," and symbolic of being at the forefront of management knowledge (Zorn, 2001). However, the growing emphasis on innovation through leveraging knowledge assets and knowledge work and knowledge workers as the primary sources of productivity suggests that the need to manage knowledge will endure as a core business concern, even if the label may change (Drucker, P., 1993).

Third, IT community provides an important professional sponsor for the diffusion of KM (Swan et al., 1999). As people increasingly have access to almost all the information they might need at any time and in any place and at low or no cost, the value of the cognitive skills still unreplicable by silicon becomes greater. Subsequently, knowledge components become more valuable than ever before (Prusak, 1996). Hence, as Swan et al. point out, the codification of knowledge through IT/IS makes those IT/IS professionals colonize KM, this may serve to increase their involvement in core strategic issues within their own organizations and enhance the status of this community. For example, companies including GE Lighting, Xerox PARC, IBM, and McKinsey have adopted the position of the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO), which is often filled by a person (or group) with an IT background (Swan et al., 1999). However, too much emphasis given on IT-based tools may limit KM’s potential for encouraging the knowledge sharing because of the ignorance of people.

Forth, KM arises from the changing nature of global economy. As Prusak (1999) points out, the globalisation of economy that brings unprecedented complexity and uncertainty is putting terrific pressure on firms for increased adaptability, flexibility, innovation, and process speed. Organizations are forced to ask themselves, “What do we know, who knows it, what do we not know that we should know?”

Moreover, behind the KM discourse there lies a resource-based view of the firm in which intellectual capital assumes greater importance than financial capital (Roos and Van Grough, 1996).

2. What lessons can be drawn for the implementation of intranets from the Brightco and Ebank case studies?

Ebank and Brightco have a lot of similarities. However, in introduction of IT platforms, Ebank’s project fails while Brightco’s succeeds. It seems clear that the different outcomes result from different implementation. For example, in Ebank, the projects involved mostly IT specialists, and the translation of the global KM vision was very much left to individuals working at the local level, thus knowledge share across boundaries was not achieved. Moreover, lack of communication and coordination led to reinvention. In contrast, in Brightco, the project involved both IT and business expertise, and people were brought to work together. There were sufficient communication and coordination among individuals, teams, and divisions, such that effective interaction was formed.

Join now!

However, the two cases in fact reflect two different approaches to KM. Ebank’s approach to KM relies heavily on IT. Brightco’s approach was broad encompassing both the use of IT and the use of process concerned with the sharing, development and utilization of knowledge, skills and expertise. These cases illustrate several fundamental issues with the IT-driven approaches.

First, the issues of codification and the importance of tacit knowledge: IT-driven KM emphasises codification of existing knowledge, but IT-based tools have limited ability to act as a medium for the sharing and exchange of valuable tacit knowledge. For example, in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay