This
paper reviews some recent approaches, setting them in a context of wider
philosophical and pragmatic issues. It identifies some paradoxical qualities of
information and knowledge at the heart of this topic, and considers their
implications.
It
considers both the more philosophical aspects of valuing information and
knowledge and the more pragmatic issues of evaluating knowledge management
initiatives (the knowledge economy evaluation is outside the scope of the
paper).
Information
and knowledge cannot realistically be regarded as a static resource, to be accumulated and stored. It has a formative,
self-organizing character, with the capability to
change the organization or society within which it exists. (The word itself,
after all, comes from the Latin ‘infomare’; to give form to.) These
considerations led to the idea that the management of information resources
needs rather different treatment from others, particularly in the assignment of
a financial value, this idea, in turn, pointing to the paradox noted above.
There are two
philosophical stances which may be taken, each of which leads to a simple
model, which in turn can lead to action, in the formulation of an information,
or knowledge, management programme. These models may be referred to as the ‘scalar’
and ‘cognitive’ models or, less formally, as the T.S. Eliot and L.S. Lowry
models.
Scalar/pyramid/T.S.
Eliot model
regards information, knowledge and related concepts as closely related entities
which can be transformed into one another, outside the human mind. It is a
common sense model, relying on an appeal to the intuitive difficulty of
distinguishing between information and knowledge in normal discourse.
Cognitive/L.S. Lowry
model regards
knowledge as something intrinsic to, and only existing within, the human mind
and cognition. Knowledge, being subjective, cannot be directly transferred or
communicated from one person to another, but must be converted into information
first. Information is then regarded as the objective – and therefore
communicable and recordable – form of knowledge. Information is thus the bridge
between the subjective knowledge in people’s heads.
The
author approaches to information management and knowledge management is by
comparing the models on which of
these two models is accepted, explicitly or, more probably, implicitly, within
an organization will determine how information and knowledge are understood,
and what approach to their management and valuation is followed.
An
organization which believes in the scalar model, in which information is
transformed into knowledge by value-added processes, will think of knowledge
management in terms of a particular kind of information management. It will
develop ‘know-how databases’, and ‘knowledge stores’, and will try to ‘capture’
the organization’s knowledge in software. In practice, this often results in
the creation of extensive intranet or groupware systems. There will be no
clear distinction between information and knowledge resources in such an
organization, and many of the assumptions of information resource management
(noted above) may well be applied universally. The value of information and
knowledge will be assessed in essentially the same way, and there may well be a
reliance on metrics to cover both.
An
organization which believes in the cognitive model will believe that
knowledge resides in the minds of its employees, and cannot realistically be
‘captured’. Instead, such an organization will implement knowledge management
largely by cultural means, by organizing their physical space appropriately,
and by using appropriate communication tools – thus encouraging and enabling
staff to share their knowledge. Examples are: financial and other rewards for
knowledge sharing; provision of well-appointed informal meeting areas;
encouraging face-to-face discussion rather than e-mail communication. There
will typically be a clear distinction between information management and
knowledge management in such organization, the former being managed by systems,
and the latter by policies [11]. The value of knowledge in such organizations
will be assessed by methods which closely relate the knowledge assets of an
organization to its overall value and performance.
There
are two other points, of particular importance to the management of information
and knowledge, and to its valuation, may be made about Polanyi’s tacit knowledge.
Holistic, involving an
appreciation of things in their totality; Polanyi refers to this as an
‘indwelling’. An attempt to focus on the ‘particulars’, the detailed and
tangible make-up of the thing, destroys what Polanyi regards as the ‘truer’
tacit appreciation. Hence, an attempt to formalize and make explicit tacit
knowledge, in the belief that what will be obtained is a more effective form,
must be doomed to disappointment.
Stimulation of
innovation and creativity, Polanyi argues that tacit knowledge carries within itself
‘a tacit foreknowledge of yet undiscovered things’ [14, p. 145], and argues
that all innovation is based upon tacit, rather than explicit, objective
knowledge. If this is accepted, then it must have strong implications for any
information service provision which has as its aim promotion of innovation.
(The issues here are also subtle: Johannessen et al. [15] point out that tacit
knowledge within an organization may be both a resource for, and a barrier
to, innovation.)
The
authors reached to conclusion that performance measurement generally has
changed considerably in recent times as notions of ‘performance’ have evolved.
‘Key performance indicators’ are important in some sectors, especially for
benchmarking service provision and quality.
With
the assumption that
-difficulty
of assessing effectiveness (as distinct from efficiency) remains a conundrum in
many circles;
-complex
to apply performance evaluation to the more tangible aspects of the
organization;
If
progress is to be made, within and between organizations, and including the
service and not-for-profit sectors too, the development of valuation tools needs
as wide a community of support as possible [30], to produce metrics which
have widespread support and which can be used for comparative purposes. Yet
at the heart of the problem lies the information and knowledge paradox, which
must be factored into any valid evaluation of knowledge management.
