Knowledge Management and Knowledge Integration
0 likes572 views
The document discusses how to create learning organizations. It states that leaders must set conditions for effective learning by ensuring learning can occur through strategic actions and interventions. Managers should act as coaches rather than controllers and criticism should be accepted. Incentives should encourage experimentation and knowledge sharing across organizations. Organizations should be flat with few hierarchies and sparse formalization. Training focuses on collective learning through shared experiences about behavior and skills.
![Knowledge Integration III
• „It [KI] examines the processes under which a
successful exchange of Information and Knowledge
is happening“ (Hislop 2003)
• “synthesis of individual specialised Knowledge into
situation-specific systemic knowledge” (Alavi/
Timawa 2001)
• “the compilation of systemic networked meta-
knowledge which forms a bridge between previously
isolated areas of knowledge and experience. It relies
on the ability to define problems independently of
disciplines and to solve them on an interdisciplinary
basis“ (Ganz/Hermann 1999)
© OK 2005
ULa](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/session3and4slideswc11thofapril-111213003457-phpapp02/85/Knowledge-Management-and-Knowledge-Integration-17-320.jpg)
Knowledge Management and Knowledge Integration
- 1. Learning Organisations IV - How to do it? I • It seems as if the leverage to become a Learning Organisation is not structure, or at least not alone, but the Human being itself • ”Performance of Organisations is depended on the Implementation of sound and fitting” HRM measures (don’t we know this already from Knowledge Sharing?) © OK 2005 ULa
- 2. Learning Organisations IV - How to do it? II • ”The role of leaders in organizations is to set necessary conditions for the organization to develop an effective learning capability. That is Managers need to take strategic action and make specific interventions to ensure that learning can occur” (Goh 1998) © OK 2005 ULa
- 3. Learning Organisations IV - How to do it? III Goh, 1998, p. 16 © OK 2005 ULa
- 4. Learning Organisations IV - How to do it? IV 1. Employees act according to the Information that they have obtained in respect to priorities of the organization in an empowered manner – Aims have to be unambiguous 2. Managers are fellow workers, they should forget about rank differences; they are not controllers but coaches; criticism is to be accepted 3. Incentives should be in place for people who are experimenting and thereby generate new knowledge; Experimentation is foundation of the Learning Organisation 4. ”best Practices” should be shared not only across the Domain borders but also across Organisations 5. shift from Domains to Team work as this allows for better Dissemination of Knowledge across all parts of the Organisations © OK 2005 ULa
- 5. Learning Organisations IV - How to do it? V • Organisations are – Flat – few hierarchies and – sparse formalisation • Training is – not oriented to fill gaps in order to improve efficiency of workers – about collective learning by shared experiences – about behaviour and skills © OK 2005 ULa
- 6. End Day 2 • “Knowledge Management” is allegedly an answer to current economic conditions • “Knowledge Management” can be differentiated into a technological and Business oriented stream • “Knowledge Management” is pretty much about “Knowledge Sharing” as a precondition, and than to reframe it • We have seen what “Knowledge Sharing” is, and what some of its problems are • “Learning Organisations” are those which are willing to encourage their employees to engage in Knowledge Sharing, set-up fitting measures and change their modes of internal cooperation to take lessons from experience made at different levels © OK 2005 ULa
- 7. The term of Learning I • As usual different ideas exist what Learning means and at which level it occurs – Is it at the Individual Level, without a strong relation to the Organisation? – Is it at the Group/Domain Level when people exchange ideas and “chit-chat” – Is it happening with a focus on Organisational repositioning to a given Environment, lessons learnt by Senior Management or – Is it in respect to Organisational internal changes, like setting up routines (Jones 1995) © OK 2005 ULa
- 8. The term of Learning II • Learning is not confined to the idea of taking ”on board” more knowledge • Learning can mean also to engage in a dialogue with somebody else and by evaluating some statements engage in new Knowledge generation ⇒ Learning means to construct new perspective, perceptions ⇒ Learning is aimed and happening in an Interactive process with others (which do not have to be present personally) © OK 2005 ULa
- 9. On the way to Knowledge Integration I • Project work has been used mostly in settings, which are problem driven and not allow for Line Organisation solutions • From this description it becomes apparent, that Projects may include members of all parts of the Organisation • Remember: Projects are time bound Objects that are there to solve a Problem (s. above) © OK 2005 ULa
- 10. On the way to Knowledge Integration II • Members of a Project are therefore reflecting different Domains of the Organisation • From Psychology it is known that a process can be observed by which Domain members – Depersonalise (reduce own characteristics) – Adapt their behaviour to that of their Domain – Try to imitate the behaviour of a Sub-group leader • This phenomena is in particular observable if a given Domain is subject to „Intra – Organisational“ stress factors © OK 2005 ULa
- 11. On the way to Knowledge Integration III • In negative terms these phenomena can be observed – Stereotyping – ethnocentrism • Positive aspects that are observed – cohesion, – Cooperation – Altruism – Empathy • In short: Domains that are under stress tend to contract, and networking is confined to its own circle – Because external relationship are negative evaluated – Members might be frightened by uncertainties when working individually and may loose communication channels with “outsiders” © OK 2005 ULa
- 12. On the way to Knowledge Integration IV • Project work in the field of Engineering,but not only there, has been run as work in the Line Organisation – Strictly sequential – Without informing other Domains when in a particular Domain things turned out to run not smoothly ⇒ Altered Milestones with impacts to overall time scales ⇒ total rework in some Domains, as their contribution would not fit anymore into the solution as existent, while working to original agreed plans • Project work across Domains seem to lack something like an internal supervision body • Not necessarily the Project Managers task to supervise that the different contributions fit together The Project Manager is in a way the Lion tamer, © OK 2005 ULa but not functional oriented!
- 13. On the way to Knowledge Integration V © OK 2005 ULa
- 14. On the way to Knowledge Integration VIKI “knowledge” ”knowing” © OK 2005 ULa
- 15. Knowledge Integration I • Knowledge Integration (KI) is evolving from the field of Engineering, and there in particular from the field of Integrated Product Development • it first was developed implicit by some Swedish guys, who tried to draw some lessons from the the failures described • Is for now focussing on the Individual level of ...yes what? – Knowledge Sharing? – Knowledge Management? – Knowledge Understanding? © OK 2005 ULa
- 16. Knowledge Integration II I am taking my Approach to KI from the field of Rapid Product Development (RPD) ⇒ How to minimise time-to-market cycles, in times of globalised markets? ⇒ How can we generate quick, Prototypes to visualise solutions while not increasing Project costs? ⇒ What to do if you are working in separate time-zones, with quit different cultures potentially? ⇒ Have to agree your Project inputs via Tools like CSCW Applications ⇒ You and your colleagues are coming from very different Domains (e.g. Design Department vs. Marketing; Production vs. Design) © OK 2005 ULa
- 17. Knowledge Integration III • „It [KI] examines the processes under which a successful exchange of Information and Knowledge is happening“ (Hislop 2003) • “synthesis of individual specialised Knowledge into situation-specific systemic knowledge” (Alavi/ Timawa 2001) • “the compilation of systemic networked meta- knowledge which forms a bridge between previously isolated areas of knowledge and experience. It relies on the ability to define problems independently of disciplines and to solve them on an interdisciplinary basis“ (Ganz/Hermann 1999) © OK 2005 ULa
- 18. Social Identity Theory Group-membership -assimilation to prototype - social attraction hypothesis - Leadership based on Prototypicality Leadership allows - change in def. Of Prototype - define new Norms - pressure on Deviant members Results: -Leaders are not selected based on capabilities - overall in the Orga. Management is a rep.of a dominant Type - overall Org. are becoming prone to be abusive to others (Hogg/Terry 2000) © OK 2005 ULa
- 19. Knowledge Integration IV • Problems that were identified as being endemic to Project work – Coordination (as described if plans would have to be altered) – Communication (the sequential form of Development/ work is maintained) – Knowledge Sharing (with all the short- comings described there) © OK 2005 ULa
- 20. Knowledge Integration V (Steinheider 1999) © OK 2005 ULa
- 21. Knowledge Integration VI • Essential premises on which KI rests: – People know different things if they are engaged in Project work – Different Disciplines take different views, and perceive different components if looking onto the same Problem (!!) – Socialisation proliferates Domain specific • Role models and “Norms” • Cognitive styles • Sets of knowledge • Standard Approaches to Problem solution © OK 2005 ULa
- 22. Knowledge Integration VII • Therefore some important features can be isolated: – Project members need to understand the Project in the same way – Vocabulary has to be agreed and stored for all members accessible – Project members have to become known to each other to build Trust (why?) – Projects need to have a set of „Norms“ which allows to sanction behaviour if a certain length of Project is to be expected © OK 2005 ULa
- 23. Generation of shared Project meaning E1 E2 E3 Project Level w. working fields Secondary Socialisation S1 S2 S3 Socialised Individuals Primary Socialisation I1 I2 I3 Individuals © OK 2005 ULa
- 24. „Norms“ in Projects © OK 2005 ULa
- 25. Knowledge Integration VIII • Different Methods of KI are distinguished and focussing on different aspects: – Formal Interventions (Oykhusen/Eisenhardt) – Thinking along (“Dutch school”) => Are in a strong sense methods as they give suggestions for behaviour and what should happen during them – “Communities of practice” => Are in my view not a method, but a description of a group of people who share sufficient Knowledge to understand what the partners mean © OK 2005 ULa
- 26. Knowledge Integration IX • Challenges when taking KI serious – Fit of Incentives to this mode of Project internal Cooperation – Individual Project members will have to live with challenges to their Domain SI – While embedded in an overall Organisational setting, large Scale Projects are becoming „Departments“ on their own – Surveillance and control options for Line managers are more and more alienated from the workers experience © OK 2005 ULa
- 27. General results I • Rethinking some of the basics – Project work is not independent of the general climate in the Organisation – Knowledge has different meanings and modes of existence – Worthwhile to ask which term of Knowledge is used and – Knowledge and its spread can be considered from at least two perspectives: ICT and Business © OK 2005 ULa
- 28. General Results II • the field of topics dealing with Knowledge KM, KS, LO, KI • Some of these Areas are seemingly more compact than others, while being internally more complex • Dealing with Knowledge means in the first instance dealing with Human beings and their motivations! • A meaningful discussion in the field of Knowledge means to lay open the individually used conception of Knowledge! • Knowledge is socially negotiated and agreed meaning about nature as well as social Objects © OK 2005 ULa