IKM Unit 2 Assignment

1)         1. What are the main dimensions and approaches of information and knowledge management?

1.1     Main dimensions information and knowledge management:

Information technology

(codified) information

work practices that relate to  knowledge generation and sharing

intellectual assets

Information management – 2 main aspects:

 – Management of information technology or technology-oriented information management • Related disciplines:

  – (Management) Information Systems  – (Wirtschaftsinformatik in German-language countries)

 – Management of (explicit/codified) information or content-oriented information management:

• Related disciplines:  – Library and Information Science (LIS) – (Records Management) 

1.2     Information and knowledge management approaches are:

• Technology-oriented IM (IT-management)

– Data management

 – IT-management (in the narrower sense)

 – Strategic IT-management

• Content-oriented IM (often labelled as knowledge management (in the broader sense))

– records management

– provision of external information, environmental scanning

– human-centered information management – information resources management

• Knowledge management (in the narrower sense) management of the implicit knowledge (personal knowledge, knowhow) 

Ø  Management of the work practices that relate to knowledge generation and sharing  Related discipline: business administration/management

2)    2. What are the most popular theoretical models of information and knowledge management?

2.1    SECI, Nonaka, knowledge creation, knowledge conversion, information creation Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation, centering on the SECI model, is probably the most widely cited theory in knowledge management. 

2.2    Holistic KM Model

3. What is SECI model and how it could be applied? 

Initially a two dimensional theory of knowledge creation was proposed (Nonaka 1994: 16-17; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995: 57-60). The first, or “epistemological”, dimension is the site of “social interaction” between tacit and explicit knowledge whereby knowledge is converted from one type to another, and new knowledge created (Nonaka et. al. 1994: 338; Nonaka 1994: 15).   After Internalization the process continues at a new ‘level’, hence the metaphor of a “spiral” of knowledge creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995: 71-2, 89) often referred to as the SECI modelWhile knowledge conversion is a social process its effects in the “epistemological” dimension appear to be on the individual since the second (“ontological”) dimension depicts the passage from individual to inter-organizational knowledge via group and organizational levels (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995: 73). Through this process an individual’s knowledge is ‘amplified’ and ‘crystallized’ “as a part of the knowledge network of an organization” (Nonaka 1994: 17-18).  This is the process of organizational knowledge creation and it too is described as a ‘spiral’.  The SECI components reappear at this level although in a different order (Nonaka et. al. 1994: 342; Nonaka 1994: 17; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995: 73, 89-90, 2356). Recently the two dimensions have become three elements or levels (Nonaka et. al. 2000; 2001a; 2001b). The SECI processes remain a key element but “ba”, or shared context of knowledge creation, and “knowledge assets” have replaced the “ontological” dimension (Nonaka et. al. 2001b:16).  Knowledge creation, a “self-transcending process by means of which one transcends the boundary of the old self into a new self” (Nonaka et. al. 2001b: 16) clearly, if somewhat mystically, indicates a strong individual and subjective focus (see also Nonaka & Toyama 2003). 

4  . What are the main critical  and challenging points towards knowledge management models?

4.1     This article examines milestone KM models from a holistic perspective. Most of the models reviewed in the article touch on but do not incorporate an important aspect of knowledge—affectual or critical knowledge.

Holistic Theory of KM has Knowledge Facet Conversion Four modes: socialization (from tacit to tacit knowledge), externalization (from tacit to explicit knowledge), combination (from explicit to explicit knowledge), and internalization (from explicit to tacit knowledge) Does not address Alludes to implicit-to-explicit conversion in the codification stage of process Not directly addressed, but the intuitive stage of process reflects implicit learning, whereas institutionalizing may refer to conversion to explicit from implicit Nine modes: socialization (implicit to implicit), formalization (implicit to explicit), routinization (explicit to implicit), systematization (explicit to explicit), orientation (explicit to critical), evaluation (critical to explicit) transformation (critical to critical), realization (critical to implicit), and deliberation (implicit to critical)

KM or HRD practitioners may be able to develop initiatives that more fundamentally use the critical facet to produce more productive and transformative learning environments, facilitate cultures that fully support knowledge access and sharing, and organizational participants that are more motivated to use new knowledge. Because of the theorized interconnected nature of the knowledge facets according to the holistic model, all programs to facilitate knowledge creation, sharing, and use would be affected by technical (conceptual), contextual (perceptual), and critical (affectual) facets regardless of whether KM leaders have awareness or take actions for each facet. Most of the KM models reviewed in this article included implicit and explicit facets, but no model includes the critical (affectual) facet except for the holistic model. KM and HRD professionals need to be cognizant of the interconnected nature of the three facets of knowledge and correspondingly adopt a holistic approach to leverage the dynamic interrelations among the three facts. For example, practices need to be created that could help organizational members systematize their actual experience in the organizational life into explicit knowledge that the whole organization can share. Same things need to happen to help organizational members align their beliefs and their actual experiences as well as with their espoused knowledge. KM  and HRD professionals need to take advantage of the interconnections of the three facets of knowledge and facilitate the interpenetration of the three facts so that knowledge could be consistently transferred and maximally utilized. Overall, the holistic model of KM combines the affectual aspect with the conceptual and perceptual aspects of knowledge and so offers a more complete picture for practitioners when dealing with organizational issues and challenges. Technical (conceptual), practical (perceptual), and critical (affectual) aspects all need to be considered at the same time

4.2     As the paper examined the empirical data on which the SECI model, central to Nonaka’s theory of organizational knowledge creation, is based. Three points stand out. First, much if not all the data for the survey and case studies actually came from earlier studies of information creation. Nonaka has made much of the difference between information andknowledge (Nonaka 1991b; 1994, pp. 15-16; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, pp. 57-9), and while his earlier studies were of semantic (as distinct from syntactic) information creation (see Nonaka 1991b), he has not produced an argument to show the equivalence of knowledge and semantic information. His theory might therefore at best be regarded as a theory of semantic information creation rather than of knowledge creation. Second, the claim that the model (whether of knowledge or information creation) was validated by a survey cannot be sustained. The survey only found support for two of the four modes (socialization, and combination) one of which is conceptually incoherent. Indeed, the fact that such an incoherent notion was validated by the survey raises further concerns about the measures used in that study. Even if they were to be justified, the survey concerned the “content” of the processes, and not the processes themselves. The SECI model is a process model, and its validation must therefore require validation of processes, not simply 'content'. Third, the detailed case materials reveal that the notions of combination and internalization have not been clearly described, and are multi-activity processes involving activities between which no common features have been demonstrated. There is no convincing evidence for either of these modes, nor for socialization. There is however some evidence for the production of descriptions of processes or activities that people could previously do but not describe – which Nonaka and his colleagues call ‘externalization’. The SECI model has thus never had a sound empirical grounding, which must call its status into question. Consideration of its theoretical soundness is beyond the scope of this paper, but we can note, for example, that Nonaka’s key distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge, and his conceptualization of tacit knowledge, have been called into question (McAdam & McCreedy 1999; Tsoukas 2003) suggesting that there may also be important theoretical shortcomings