IT Tools Assist in Knowledge Management
11 Aug, 2009 by James L. Clark in Business, Information Technology, Knowledge Management
HOW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TOOLS ASSIST IN THE CREATION, DISSEMINATION, AND MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE
BY JAMES L. CLARK, SNR., ESQ.
‘Man is a tool-using animal… Without tools he is nothing, with tools’ -Thomas Carlyle (Essayist & historian, 1795-1881)
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate how information technology has given support to the automation or augmentation processes of organizational knowledge management at the operational or functional level of a company as related to structures, people, and cultures.
To accomplish this, knowledge management tools of a computer nature, especially in contrast to information management tools, are described and examples of their use are given.
KNOWLEDGE TOOLS
Computer based knowledge management technologies enhance and enable knowledge generation, codification, and transfer (Skuce, 1991). They are designed to ease burdens so that resources can be applied efficiently to the tasks for which they are most suited.
Knowledge management tools are different from information or data management tools; they do different things.
Data management tools, such as Microsoft Access, Fox Pro, and dBase allow organizations to generate, store, access, and analyze raw data in the form of facts and figures. Information management tools, such as e-bots, search engines, and word processing programs enable the manipulation of information, or data that informs. These are all useful but they do not capture the complexity of context and the richness of knowledge.
Knowledge management tools also handle data and information, like the aforementioned, but they are far more robust programs.
One example I can use to differentiate these two types of tools is to imagine reading a description Edvard Munch’s classic painting ‘The Scream’. Having the information is certainly useful, and in the minds-eye humans have the ability to ‘visualize’ and ‘imagine’ what it might look like, but it will lack the richness, individuality, and full context of knowledge. If one wants a deeper ‘connection’ and ‘understanding’ of the painting, it must actually be ‘seen’ to be appreciated. Knowledge tools can help us create, see, and share the painting – data and information management tools lack this ability.
For the purposes of this essay, knowledge tools have been divided into three general categories: generation, codification, and transfer (Hunter, 1988).
THE GENERATION OF KNOWLEDGE
The former U.S. President John Quincy Adams once said, ‘To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind. It prolongs life itself and enlarges the sphere of existence.’ Without question, knowledge generation is one of the keys to an organization’s long-term viability and competitiveness (winter, 1992).
Knowledge generation includes the creation of new ideas, the recognition of new patterns, the synthesis of separate disciplines, and the development of new processes (Gruber, 1993). Therefore, knowledge generation requires tools which enable this and anything that pushes people to achieve this, is such a ‘tool’.
THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE
The Internet has had a profound impact on one’s ability to search and acquire (Eriksson, 1994). Inferential search engines like Yahoo and programs like Copernic Pro can access hundreds of thousands of websites and millions of online documents to bring us information on command. Whilst these do not necessarily result in knowledge, they assist by providing ‘road maps’ if you will, to it.
An example of a knowledge-based acquisition tool is GrapeVINE. It uses a ‘knowledge chart’, a collection of documents representing the organization’s knowledge and information and several other components to add value to information on an individual basis. As such, it promotes knowledge creation and knowledge transfer.
When a new document is introduced or identified, a ‘Profiler’ function uses this knowledge chart to assign keywords, which can be further amended by individuals commenting on the document.
When a new document enters the system, it is directed to individuals called ‘gatekeepers’, or designated users who sort through all documents and assign a particular significance level to it. In doing so, most people are shielded from information that does not meet what they consider important. This helps keep knowledge transfer high value-added, and away from simply being a knowledge barrage.
THE SYNTHESIS OF KNOWLEDGE
Synthesis relies on bringing ideas together, often from extremely diverse sources, and recombining them in unique ways such that new ideas can emerge (MacGregor, 1991). Most inventions are developed this in this way. For example, the first airplane developed by the Wright Brothers was an innovative synthesis of three pre-existing ideas: the bicycle, the motor, and the airfoil.
Acquisition methods conduct searches based upon a user’s criteria; they do not search for relationships among ideas. Even with today’s sophisticated technologies, it is impossible to do so. For example, what terms and in what syntax would have produced the needed components for the first airplane?
For now, the power of most acquisition tools is in the efficiency of action, and not in the ingenuity of interaction. It will be sometime before knowledge generation can take place via programs vs. the human mind.
However, software tools like IdeaFisher can augment this process. The software works through word and phrase associations and can help people put together disparate pieces to generate new ideas. Inspiration is another tool which assists by allowing users to develop graphical mind-maps. By being able to visualize associations, user’s can represent concept linkages which can contribute powerfully to synthesis
CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE
Wholesale creation is the rarest form of knowledge generation. Tools like Idea Generator and MindLink push the limits of a person’s or group’s creativity level by guiding them to break away from their existing mental models. By using random thought exercises, people move towards a ‘creative’ mind-set which would otherwise been difficult to achieve from within their own paradigms (Regoczei, 1989).
Knowledge generation is, at present, a human activity. But one wonders if there will be a point in the future where technology will also be able to ‘create’ knowledge. The advanced acquisition capabilities already exist, so as artificial intelligence advances, perhaps too will synthesis, invariably leading to certain levels of creation (MacGregor, 1991).
KNOWLEDGE CODIFICATION
Knowledge codification is the representation of knowledge so can be accessed and transferred (Lethbridge, 1992). However, it is nearly impossible to talk about knowledge in terms of discrete units. In fact, because of context sensitivity, knowledge is slow to accumulate, slow to change, and is hard to define in terms of boundaries. As such, auditing and categorizing knowledge is difficult.
One model of typology which has met with some success consists of four main categories: Process, Factual, Catalog, and Cultural Knowledge (Nonaka, 1995 & Srikanth, 1994).
The first, Process Knowledge, can be thought of as ‘recipes’ for doing things well. Often these are ‘collected’ through benchmarking efforts. The second category, Factual Knowledge, is basic information about people and things. Then there is Catalog Knowledge, that is, knowledge of ‘where’ things are. And finally, Cultural Knowledge is how things actually get done in an organization. Often, this area is devastated when companies downsize (Nonaka, 1995).
Knowledge of all of these types can be tacit or explicit and can be held at either a personal or organizational level (Nonaka, 1995).
KNOWLEDGE-BASES
Many people use the term ‘knowledge-base’ interchangeably with ‘database’ or ‘infobase’ in an attempt to ride the current wave of interest in knowledge assets, but without changing the content of the ideas. Knowledge-bases are much more complex entities and must be able to hold not only the ideas themselves, but also such elements as their interrelationships, history, and past usage information (Skuce, 1996).
Combine the tools already mentioned with the advanced search capabilities of knowledge-base software like Visual RetrievalWare, and the process becomes easier and more efficient.
Knowledge-bases, like that mentioned above, usually take the form of collections of anecdotes, experiences, technical data, commentaries, and other types of judgment- and decision-supporting inputs. But, like all things used to support judgments and decisions, the ‘collections’ must be reviewed regularly.
There are three dimensions of knowledge which are worth reviewing:
COGNITIVE AUTHORITY
The quality of ‘knowledge’ is truly subjective in nature. The primary complaint about the Internet is that the results tend to be high in quantity, but with questionable quality.
Like anything, quality can be determined by considering the date it was written, published, why it was written, the author’s background and qualifications, and so forth. Quality is affected most by tools in the level of quality which a knowledge-base can represent.
Those tools which can capture more of the elements of quality inform their users better as to the knowledge contained within. Overtness is significantly enhanced by technology, but is driven by relevance (Meyer, 1992).
Knowledge-bases should be designed to overtly provide relevant, high-quality knowledge. Better organizational maps and dictionaries can help with this.
KNOWLEDGE MAPS
Eighteenth century writer Samuel Johnson maintained that, ‘Knowledge is of two types: you can know a thing itself or you can know where to find it’. Knowledge maps help address the latter.
Any attempt to capture all of the knowledge contained in an organization is an exercise in futility. However, mapping out where to find the ideas that are important to running processes and the like can be very helpful.
KnowledgeX’s eponymous tool allows an organization to create a map of its interrelated set of contacts, documents, events, and other interactions with information, allowing users to continuously comment, update, and explore the ‘nodes’ or destinations on the map, and create and change the relationships. This technology has had a tremendous impact on the creation and transfer of knowledge.
Another use for maps is to chart the knowledge flows within a process, from acquisition to development, storage, and internal and external deployment. The company Hoffmann-LaRoche created one around its drug approval process that accelerated filing time immediately from 18 months to just 90 days. It also reduced expected FDA approval from three years to nine months (Seemann, 1997).
ORGANIZATIONAL THESAURUS AND DICTIONARY
Codification is quite useless without organization (Meyer, 1992). An act as seemingly simple as putting together a manual of terms and ideas which can be shared throughout the company is an effective move towards greater clarity. From a social perspective, this can give rise to perspectives being reconciled and inter-organizational relationships being strengthened.
Having served in the armed forces I can attest to the fact that military’s principle of doctrine is much like this. Despite the usual connotations, doctrine is not a rigid set of rules, but rather a shared set of meanings. By having a strict structure to knowledge, it is quite easy to find a place for lessons learned, and to figure out where to go to find information about a particular practice area. To soldiers, the accuracy of this information can mean the difference between life and death in battle. In business however, the battle is waged in different ways, but still important to the life of the organization.
KNOWLEDGE SIMULATORS
Most people are familiar with flight simulators, but there are also industry, business, and organizational simulators as well. Simulation tools actually bridge the gap between codification and the transfer of knowledge (Lethbridge, 1992).
For example, TeleSim helps telecommunications companies try strategies and learn about some of the underlying dynamics of their industry. Using genetic algorithms and other advanced technologies, such programs evolve over time, ‘learning’ from their own experience and introducing the same sorts of twists and turns found in the real world. By codifying knowledge of the industry and letting people try out ideas, knowledge and experience is gained in a much more efficient manner than through years of trial-and-error. This is the hallmark of good knowledge transfer.
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
There is real power in effective knowledge transfer. Case after case describes the benefits accrued when one segment of an organization is able to take advantage of the understanding and experiences of another (Lethbridge, 1992).
One example of what ‘knowledge transfer’ is was developed by Nonaka et al (1995). They said knowledge should be seen as going from tacit/individual socialized to explicit/individual through articulation, to explicit/group through combination, to tacit/group through internalization. By making this process observable management is able to use it as a tool to promote behavior which moves knowledge appropriately. However, explicitness is usually not enough.
There are three main barriers to sharing knowledge: temporal, spatial, and social distance. The further any two groups are away from each other on anyone of these, the more difficult it is to pass on knowledge. An example of what takes place can be demonstrated through the child’s game ‘pass-it-on’ wherein one person at one end of a line ‘passes’ a sentence onto the next until it reaches the end of the line. Invariably, the greater the distance, the greater the distortion of what was said. However, tools can be used to reduce this.
TEMPORAL DISTANCE
Time can be a barrier in two ways: historical and current. Historical time barriers have to do with organizational memory. Face-to-face knowledge exchange, although rich, has little lasting value to the organization unless captured and made available to others when needed. Current time problems usually come from the difficulty in coordinating two schedules to coincide long enough for knowledge exchange to take place.
Enter ‘groupware’ applications. These hold current comments and evolutionary threads thereby addressing both historical and current time problems.
PHYSICAL DISTANCE
Modern organizations are rarely house in one central location. This is especially so with global corporations. Since face-to-face exchanges are the best for all forms of knowledge exchange, what can be done to prevent a ‘brain-drain’ where such interactions are not geographically viable?
Many companies now use virtual ‘war rooms’ as incubators for spontaneous innovation. Because, at the end of the day, knowledge transfer must take place between people, new technologies are providing the opportunity for such transfer by creating the space and the opportunity via high-speed communications in the form of audio and video links, virtual white-boards, and so on.
One such software package is Microsoft’s NetMeeting, which uses all of these technologies and more. Nowadays, physical distance presents less of a barrier to relatively rich interaction than it has in years past.
SOCIAL DISTANCE
Social distance includes factors such as hierarchical, functional, and cultural differences which constrain shared understanding. These are often overlooked and tend to be the most difficult barriers to overcome (Collins, 1990).
Tools which can help avoid or bridge such gaps are usually built around facilitating ‘social translation’. One tool is the Learning Map process, used by companies such as Boeing and Pepsi-Cola Co.
Root Learning goes into a company to take corporate plans and translate them into ‘plain English’ objectives and activities that can be used to drive a business. They are represented on large charts, or Learning Maps. When implemented properly, these Learning Maps are extremely useful in promoting knowledge transfer both vertically and horizontally (West, 1995).
Other mechanisms for bridging social gaps revolve around supporting cognitive authority over mandated authority and mapping relationships, to develop a better understanding of an organization’s underlying ‘communities of practice’ or ‘communities of interest’.
RELATIONSHIP MAPPING
No matter which tools are used to support such activities, knowledge transfer takes place between people. Therefore, one of the first places to look for levers in knowledge transfer is in the interactions of people.
The Institute for Research on Learning uses the idea of communities of practice to describe the sets of relationships within an organization around which learning and knowledge transfer takes place. CoPs are not the same as teams or networks as they are based on shared experience and activities. As such, knowledge sharing is much easier.
By looking at an organization in terms of its natural, as well as the dictated, networks of relationships, it is possible to establish better and more organic incentives for knowledge transfer (Stewart, 1996).
EnCompass is a software package that translates cross-validated interaction information, such as frequency and importance, into a powerful, three-dimensional, graphical representation.
Once interactions and relationships have been mapped, more useful ones can be proposed and the gaps and disconnects displayed.
USING TOOLS TO GET RESULTS
Poorly implemented knowledge tools might as well be data or information management tools. To make the most of knowledge, tools must support an underlying set of knowledge activities. Without a culture in place which supports knowledge sharing, the tools will be useless.
Tools can augment knowledge activities only if they are matched to the needs of the problems to be solved and level of the barriers to be overcome. For example, my anthropology professor at San Jose State University worked with Xerox in the 1980s and 90s conducting research.
What they found was copier repair technicians were making a point of spending time with each other, and not with customers. They would congregate in common areas and share ‘stories’. In fact, what they were doing was transferring knowledge.
Tools were quickly brought to bear to augment this group’s current knowledge management practices. Two-way radio headsets were issued to each which created a ‘knowledge channel’ for immediate interaction.
The only real downside was that nobody was ‘capturing’ the knowledge being generated. In response PARC and Rank Xerox created an electronic ‘knowledge refinery’ called Eureka, which organized and categorized a database of tips generated by the reps.
Xerox’s approach, and the resulting success, was predicated on the meshing of technological capabilities with the employee’s social and behavioral norms. They were able to align these elements to produce greater efficiencies, promote innovation, and begin to break down the three barriers to knowledge sharing. No tool alone could have addressed all of these issues, but when appropriate technologies were applied in conjunction with effective practices, the organization enabled the tech rep’s to make the most of their individual and collective knowledge.
CONCLUSION
Tools and technologies have been used for thousands of years – as humans, it is in our very nature to do so. But ‘tools’ in themselves are not the answer to the epistemological questions surrounding knowledge.
Knowledge tools go beyond traditional data and information management and assist in organization’s knowledge processes. They enable and increase the benefits of knowledge management through augmentation and automation. Even so, many of the issues involved in the installation and use of technologies such as these are the same in any area. That is, employees have to be taught how to use them and so on.
Knowledge is very personal and technology is not. However, when utilized appropriately, technology can be an extremely effective in the management of knowledge.
– o0o –
BIBLIOGRAPHY is in footnote form and can be requested from the author.
© Copyright 2001, 2009 by James L. Clark, Snr., Esq. All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited by domestic and international laws. This document is not for open publication and may not be released to third parties. The rights of the author have been asserted.
Website: http://www.jameslclark.com
