Evolution of Knowledge Management
We live in a wickedly fast time when it comes to analyzing
how things evolve or become extinct. The pace of technology and data
production has created a world of data that requires persistent knowledge management
to find relevant information before it becomes absolute.
In reviewing the history of knowledge management, Dixon
advocated the three evolutions consisting of explicit knowledge, experiential
knowledge, and an era of collective knowledge. It is this era of collective
knowledge and networked individuals that is challenging how we view knowledge
management practices. Throughout history, knowledge has been centered on individual
skills and internal management of systems to produce efficient organizations or
businesses. It was this surge to create power from information that spawned the
knowledge management business boom. Companies were unable to file, process,
analyze, and synthesize data in efficient methods. As technology and internet
improved, it changed the dynamics of knowledge management. The ability of the
individual to conduct research via google and virtual networks created bypasses to established systems of internal knowledge management procedures. Perhaps it
is this surge in individual connectivity among virtual networks that caused
Davenport’s Washington Post article on
the decline of knowledge management.
I agree in the concept advocated by Davenport. Knowledge
management has changed in various ways. As advanced by Kevin Kelly, the forces
of accessing and sharing have shaped the ability of individuals to management
information. Accessing has facilitated links to multiple sources while the
ability to share via Facebook or other social media networks has led to the propagation of ideas.
One of the concerns in this new virtual network is the
ability of individuals to self-select information that feeds their self-perceived
notions. This is extremely dangerous in the age of fake news and
disinformation. Without conducting quality analysis of information sources, an individual
could quickly retweet or propagate a concept or idea that is fake. This is a
prime reason why logic and critical thinking classes are important in our modern education
system.
As we review how fast information can evolve or become extinct,
it is critical to remember the value of information only becomes knowledge if
it is analyzed and applied in real life.
Thank you for your thoughts regarding knowledge management (KM) this week. It is clear that advancements in technology and the internet has enabled individuals to connect among virtual networks and has made it much easier to externally obtain and share free information. This internal to external shift in KM has caused a major challenge for organizations. In my opinion, it seems organizations will always be limited in how much they know and learn if KM is only driven internally - the internet provides access to limitless information! Like you, I think access to more information has not always equated to the ability to learn or know more, but instead has led to more confusion and skepticism with information in general. However, I do not necessarily agree with Davenport (2015) that this shift has led to the decline of KM. Rather, it has made it more challenging. If anything, I think this shift in KM provides a tremendous opportunity for organizations to learn and know more if approached effectively.
ReplyDeleteEmployees are accessing external information via the internet and amongst connected networks – and this will always be the case going forward. But as Kelley (2016) suggests, if this cannot be stopped, maybe it is time to embrace it. As you noted in your last line, “information only becomes knowledge if it is analyzed and applied in real life.” So how does this happen? Bottom line, I think more dialogue and conversation needs to happen, and this is where I believe the role of leadership comes into play. As Dixon (2009) explains, leadership needs to provide a space and forum in which skilled employees with cognitively diverse perspectives can share, question, and provide feedback on new information and ideas that emerge from both internal and external means (Dixon, 2009). Moreover, leaders should not have all the answers, but appropriately facilitate the discussion in a manner whereby employees do most of the conversing in order to discern between what information is accurate and what information is not (Dixon, 2009). This, to me, sounds like a more feasible approach to the new shift in KM to enable organizations and its employees to truly learn and know.
However, something still seems missing to me. If the leader’s role, as Dixon (2009) suggests, is not to provide answers and instead to facilitate the discovery of knowledge through employee dialogue, then in your opinion when does the leader’s competency come into question? How much does the competency and knowledge of those in leadership positions count? Thanks, and I apologize for my lengthy reply!
References
Dixon, N. (May 02, 2009). Where knowledge management has been and where it is going. Conversation Matters. Retrieved from: https://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/05/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-one.html
Kelley, K. (2016). The inevitable: Understanding the 12 technological forces that will shape our future. New York: NY: Penguin Random House LLC
You pose a question that has plagued me for the past ten years. What is the competency of the leader and how do they apply it to KM. It often seems that a leader focuses on the system or tech portion of KM and not the employee’s comprehension of the technology and application. We fail to invest in the human aspect of knowledge management analysis.
DeleteWhy would a company believe that their knowledge was something that needed to be managed? I imagine the company would believe what they were doing was special, so special that it created a competitive advantage. I imagine the company was experiencing a period of sustained superior performance. I imagine that the public sector and the company leadership established expectations that led them to believe they were leading the field. Still I wonder, why was knowledge the intended target of management.Today, with the access to so much information available via technology, security is extremely important to maintain information superiority. How do you protect knowledge? How do you make knowledge protect-able?I really think that the this is the reason KM has had mediocre success and will not go away. If knowledge can be codified, I think part will be found in the corporate value statements because these statements indicate how information will be used. Another part will be established in the training program. Leadership's ability to walk the talk will contribute as well. These elements contribute to prevent the misuse of information to stroke one's ego or preconceived notions. A good program would make clear the ethical boundaries surrounding the association of information and the organization and require critical thinking skills by everyone in the organization to be successful.Forces against knowledge management exist in every member of the organization--individuals do not like being seen as a conformist. Some how being the revolutionary and having the best non-original idea without knowing it, seems to be part of being human. My years in the Navy allowed me to see boot camp and officer candidate school did not change everyone. Changing is hard by the time individuals make it to the work place. Individuals must want to change, want to be part of the organization and recognize that many conflicts are not bigger than them-self; still this may not be enough to use and listen to the knowledge you have.
ReplyDeleteKP92,
DeleteYou bring up some valid thoughts. KM seems to be in an changing role in corporate and government areas. It seems the advances in technology have pushed and challenged KM practices, leading to the sense of mediocrity mentioned. I enjoyed your comment about how OCS and boot camp do not necessarily change the expected behavior of individuals. I believe the heart of KM still lies in the human aspect of critical thinking.
Change is inevitable. It is how one adapts to change which makes them great leaders.
DeleteSecurity is important, yet we continue to hear about security breaches amongst credit card companies and Equifax, and we also hear of credit card scammer devices being installed at gas pumps. Knowledge management may only be managed if the knowledge is there. When the internet was developed and continued to evolve, I doubt the creator thought that it would be used as tool for criminals to commit a whole new era of crime. Therefore, at that time, leaders did not discuss how they could manage technology so as to prevent a data breach or a whole new level of cyber crimes. It is only what we know that we can manage.