The characteristics of organizational knowledge

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

In the study of management, business and organizational studies, many authors and scholars concur that there is a strong connection between effective management of the intellectual assets of an organization and continuous progress in performance.

This is to say that knowledge management has become an essential requirement for management of organizations, which guarantees successful performance. Above all these important components, it has been agreed that knowledge itself is vital and incomparable.

As a result, business organizations can derive value from the type and location of their knowledge resources by investing in creative knowledge management techniques. In its broadness, knowledge can be described as the driving force behind societal, personal and organizational behavior (Campos & Sanchez 2003).

Notably, there are two knowledge-related aspects, which are essential for the feasibility and excellent performance of any business organization.

The first aspect concerns knowledge assets, which is also known as intellectual assets. This generally refers to priceless knowledge that is readily available for use by individuals or by the entire organizations. For the success of any organization, nurturing and use of knowledge is important for all the parties involved (Cohen & Levinthal 1990). The second aspect entails knowledge-related processes.

These processes are commonly found in organizations and may have a wide range of applications including but not limited to transforming, creating, safeguarding, compiling, pooling, building, organizing and applying knowledge. For better results, it is important for these areas to be properly and explicitly managed, with regard to all sectors that could be affected.

In the understanding of this concept, it is imperative to underscore the need for effective knowledge management in order to achieve individual and organizational objectives (Cohen & Levinthal 1990). In this line of thought, management of knowledge in organizations must be internalized from three stances as discussed below:

Business perspective

From this point of view, the management is usually tasked to focus on where, why and to what degree an organization is supposed to invest and exploit knowledge in the running of its services. In general, knowledge augments development of services, strategies, products, acquisitions and alliances (Coombs & Hull 1998).

A good example of this is corporate strategy, which only thrives depending on how knowledge is managed within an organization. Additionally, planning and designing of new products and services principally depends on knowledge.

It is also vital to note that knowledge management is needed to give direction to an organization to create, install and exploit knowledge assets and if possible establish joint collaborations with an aim of exploiting knowledge.

Management perspective

In this perspective, knowledge-related activities are usually given preference through determination, monitoring and directing of relevant processes in order to attain desired business goals and objectives. Moreover, every organization requires knowledge to develop knowledge, regarding the creation, transfer, acquisition, usage and retention of knowledge (Coombs & Hull 1998).

As a result, it is doubtless that management of knowledge is necessary to examine processes and adopt policies and ideas, which are indispensable during the identification of knowledge-related activities.

Operational perspective

Unlike the above discussed stances, this perspective requires the management to be committed to employing the services of expertise to perform clear knowledge-related work and responsibilities. Furthermore, one requires knowledge in order to carry out a research to establish knowledge status, as a way of discovering the available knowledge that is necessary in future development of human resources.

Importantly, knowledge management is essential for the purpose of better training, establishment of a pool of knowledge and systems and better research and development. From this discussion of the three perspectives, it is worth noting that management of knowledge requires relevant attention and analysis from people with reputable skills like researchers and business management experts (Coombs & Hull 1998).

In the study of knowledge management, Ryle’s work of 1949 is considered to be the first piece of literature to be published, covering the concept of knowledge. In The Concept of Mind, Ryle brought to the attention of the world the concepts of know-that and know-how, which is sometimes referred to as know-what (Ryle 1949, p. 2).

On the other hand, it was concluded that knowledge can broadly be divided into tacit and explicit knowledge (Polanyi 1966, p. 5). These two types of knowledge will be discussed in later segments of this paper.

In his 1987 research, Von Hippel described information trading as the readiness of employees to fit in varying organizations, including their direct competitors for the purpose of informal exchange of information (Von 1987). He further defined knowledge transfer as the process which a member of a given network is influenced by what happens in the life of another member.

These explanations are based on the fact that most employees exchange information through a process, to allow the formation of new knowledge about current products as well as new ones to be created in future (Ryle 1949, p. 2). Despite the efforts made by these authors, it is imperative to note that their work received almost no attention from organizational management until early 1990s.

Nevertheless, many Multi National Enterprises were forced to downsize and retrench some employees towards the end of 1980s, an incident, which was mainly fuelled by sluggish business activities.

Among other factors, the world witnessed major stock market stock market crashes, which forced most organizations to revaluate their strategies to mitigate the impact of these effects (Polanyi 1966, p. 5). As a result, there was the birth of two major business and management aspects, which were process re-engineering and knowledge management concept.

In 1990, Nonaka gave a detailed explanation on the two types of knowledge, namely, tacit and explicit knowledge. From his approach, explicit knowledge can be obtained through gathering of information that is collected from customer files, manuals, databases, and software.

This type is also referred as structural capital (Nonaka 1990, p. 15). On the other hand, tacit knowledge may exist in the minds of suppliers, employees and customers, and it is commonly referred to as human capital. When the two types of knowledge are combined, they result into an intellectual capital of the organization.

Based on previous history, it is noteworthy that interest in the topic of knowledge management has exponentially been realized, with several learning and research institutions identifying it as a major discipline (Nonaka 1990, p. 15).

The rise of Knowledge Management

As indicated in the previous segment of this paper, a host of people have developed interest in the concept of knowledge management for several years. However, this interest attained its peak in 1990s, when massive research was being done by scholars and researchers. Throughout this period, these authors have attained a consensus with regard to the impact of knowledge management in organizational performance.

It is regarded as a major tool that is effective in attaining a competitive advantage within the business industry, together with a myriad of other advantages. Additionally, exchange and sharing of knowledge has been applauded especially to increase its relevance to the functioning of a given organization (Bohn 1994).

As one of the writers who have contributed to the expansion of this field, Nonaka proposed that a high level of attention is usually required when handling knowledge processes and the procedure of creating new knowledge (Nonaka 1991). Additionally, knowledge may change meaning especially when it is moved to a different context. As a result, a match between the recipient’s point of view and the nature of the received is quite significant.

It is equally important to emphasize that creation of knowledge is always a continuous process, which mainly starts at an individual’s level, before expanding to other sections, division and even beyond the confines of an organization (Bohn 1994).

In analysing the impact of some of the findings recorded by various authors, it suffices to mention that some of the information left gaps like how to identify existing type of knowledge mismatches or finding the sources for the mismatches.

Important findings were also made by and Nonaka and Takeuchi in 1995, when they affirmed that explicit knowledge can easily be articulated and disseminated in a wide range of formats, while tacit information is generally hidden and unspoken (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, p. 10).

Furthermore, Nonaka and Takeuchi argued that knowledge conversion has four modes, which are: internationalism, socialism, internationalism and a combination of the three modes. As a result, it is prudent for an organization to prepare for one of the above mentioned modes when settling on a particular knowledge management program that is deemed more feasible than others (Bohn 1994).

Conversion modes

The SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization) theory recognizes the fact that knowledge has four modes of conversion, which are important since they are believed to be the sources of knowledge. The four conversations are summarized below:

The first mode as described by the theory is that it converts tacit knowledge from tacit knowledge and is commonly referred to as socialization. The only recognized way of achieving this is through individual sharing of knowledge with other individuals based on their experiences in the field. The second mode is viewed as a combination since it converts explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge.

Unlike in the first mode, knowledge is generated through sorting and re-categorizing of the available knowledge from the sources. On the other hand, externalization revolves around converting tacit knowledge to explicit organizational information (Nonaka 1991).

According to this mode, the knowledge of an individual can be converted into a form that can be well understood by other people in the same group. It is therefore applied with an aim of creating new knowledge that would be relevant to the organization, in making it more competitive.

The last mode is internationalism, which converts explicit knowledge to tacit information. This mode allows one to understand knowledge that is directly linked to an individual in an organization. Importantly, this stage allows practical application of knowledge in generating new and better organization’s routines.

Another research, which is well recognized in the study of the concept of knowledge management, was done by Coombs and Hull in 1998, who argued that the field can be divided into three segments. The first one is knowledge processing. It is believed that this category of knowledge management mainly revolves around transfer, capture, utilization, codification, identification and format among others (Coombs & Hull 1998).

The second one is knowledge domains, which principally deals with classification of knowledge. For example, several areas of knowledge acquisition present different factors.

These areas are technical knowledge, process knowledge, product knowledge, external and internal knowledge, and process knowledge. Lastly, knowledge formality is literally concerned with the general format of knowledge. For example, formal knowledge presents a different format from informal knowledge (Coombs & Hull 1998).

In addition, knowledge management plays a significant role in determining the quality of services and products given by a given organization. For instance, these management processes are viewed as ways through which addition of value to inputs, which is later used in the production of processed-knowledge.

This approach significantly adds value to clients. Nevertheless, specific requirements for this vary widely across industries. Four primary processes have been put forth, which are important when handling resources of knowledge. These include utilization of knowledge, value addition to information, knowledge generation and knowledge capturing.

Similarly, organizations are usually encouraged to adopt additional processes for sorting and accessing knowledge to allow the four requirements above to function effectively. For instance, other people should be given a chance to identify the relevance of particular knowledge even if it is coded.

Moreover, information can only be converted into knowledge when it is relevant, understandable and usable. This double emphasizes the need for assessing and evaluating any kind knowledge before it can be used.

For performance strategies to work, it is important for an organization to have the right knowledge that is required. In this context, poor or defective knowledge may undermine the viability of organizational strategies. In this essence, there exists a relationship between availability of poor knowledge and the unachievable strategies.

It is therefore the role of the management to create a match between intended strategies and the realized strategies. This mismatch of knowledge is known as a knowledge gap while strategic gaps define differences between the realized strategy and the intended strategy.

In this understanding, mapping techniques are commonly applied in establishing what organization can do while backward mapping identifies important aspects that have to be known to the organization (Soliman 1998).

Similarly, in cases where complex knowledge management systems exist, it has been mentioned that this may enhance realization of intensive knowledge network. Importantly, a combination of knowledge loops and spirals has the potential of leading an organization into knowledge gaps. This stage is usually followed by the occurrence of strategic gaps, which may result into poor organizational performance.

Attributes and characteristics of Knowledge

Every enterprise is always challenged to perform better than existing competitors in the market. In achieving this competitive advantage, some management experts argue that knowledge is a major tool required for the task. This is mainly because organizations, which are able to define their knowledge management activities, get opportunities to make potential improvement, which yields competitive advantage within the business market.

Similarly, correct knowledge should be able to identify areas of weakness within the organization, which could hinder the firm from attaining competitive advantage over other organizations.

As discussed in the previous segments of this paper, it is doubtless that knowledge gaps could be one of the factors hampering competitive advantage in most organizations. Based on the irreplaceable role played by knowledge management, it is essential for an organization to identify and segment knowledge for the purpose of determining the usefulness of every knowledge segment.

Knowledge-based systems need to have the following seven characteristics.

They must have reasoning and programming capabilities

Have enough knowledge regarding a given domain or situation

Must have an inference engine, different from the knowledge base

Can handle varying data, say, uncertain conflicting and unknown

Must allow easy medication by the administrator

Have a source that explains the reasoning process

Must extensively use “if-then rules”

Notably, many organizations are usually faced with the challenge of disseminating knowledge to where it is needed by people. Consequently, available knowledge may require sorting and screening to ensure that only relevant information is delivered (Soliman 1998). What are some of the attributes of knowledge that have to be considered when disseminating information to where it is needed?

Accuracy

Although it is not easy to determine the accuracy of knowledge, experts agree that one is able to measure knowledge against envisaged knowledge. The degree of closeness of the two aspects may therefore determine the confidence of people in the knowledge applied and the ultimate value of the knowledge.

Nevertheless, reproducibility and repeatability of knowledge may be tied on other factors. In its application and definition, accuracy may refer to correctness, reliability or truthfulness.

Timeliness and currency

According to knowledge management experts, the main aim of timeliness is for one to avoid making decisions, that are out of date and which may harm the progress of an organization. In this respect, it suffices to mention that valid knowledge must be current. In other words, one is able to find out when the knowledge was obtained, revised and whether it is current or out of date.

Relevance of knowledge

In the application of any information, there is usually a lot of weight attached to relevance and organizational impact. In this context, the relevance of knowledge could therefore be determined based on a range of factors including functionality, flexibility, importance, reliability, portability, functionality and importance.

With regard to the impact of the knowledge, this is principally determined by the value of the working environment and the overall performance (Davenport & Short 1990). The benefits of knowledge relevance could be determined by the relationship of the knowledge to the topic, target users of the knowledge, and the level of the knowledge.

Authority

This deals with the origin of the knowledge in order to determine its authenticity and reality. The source of any information can be determined by finding out the author, publisher and sponsor. Additionally, the author’s credentials are important and his or her affiliate organization in handling knowledge.

Purpose

It is vital to establish the need for a given type of knowledge. This is usually considered to be critical in establishing the integrity of a particular type of knowledge. The intended purpose of information can therefore be determined by establishing the intensions of the authors, impartiality or objectivity of the information and the kind of biases present.

Importance

This entails a wide range of issues, including the ability to control the characteristics of knowledge within the organization, its focus and its timing. However, important knowledge has to meet the needs of a given organization, by responding to a real world problem in a manner that allows the realization of a solution.

Accessibility

This simply denotes the understandability of knowledge. Knowledge may lose meaning especially in cases where it is considered to be difficult to comprehend. Additionally, this encompasses the readability and its focus towards realizing the objectives of the organization.

Applicability

This involves the completeness of knowledge and its ability to provide direction to the organization. Inapplicability of knowledge may cause it to become irrelevant. This concept also covers the completeness of the knowledge and availability of recommendations for sober actions to be taken. This may hinder its application even when it is perceived to relevant (Davenport & Short 1990).

Suitability

This is mainly concerned with how the knowledge being sourced is important and suitable to the organization in meeting the needs of the organization.

Many knowledge management experts believe that there is a connection between the applicability of knowledge and its suitability to satisfy the needs of an organization (Soliman 1998). Knowledge that is important and suitable to an organization can be enhanced in future to make it more satisfying in meeting its intended purpose.

As mentioned above, the aim of having proper information about knowledge management is to develop effective operations, establish control mechanisms, compare results, gauge performance and take remedial action if deemed necessary (Soliman 1998).

In this regard, it can be deduced that the above characteristics of knowledge have an array of advantages, which can be realized by an organization through effective knowledge management. This is to say that organizations are tasked to enhance their efficacy through excellent knowledge management practices, with the absence of non-value-adding task (Soliman 1998).

Conclusion

From the above analysis, it is evident that knowledge management is widely recognized as a priceless tool in organizational management. If well implemented, proper knowledge management programs have the potential of influencing the performance of an organization positively (Campos & Sanchez 2003). As a result, it is highly regarded as a competitive advantage tool in the business world.

On this basis, there is every need for organizations to review and evaluate their knowledge management tools in order to have them inclined towards attaining set goals and objectives. Good strategies should therefore be implemented, with reference to the current knowledge that addresses the needs of the organization.

Importantly, the ability of any organization to thrive to today’s business environment is solely determined by the way knowledge and skills are coherently applied in the running of the organization. In implementing this, the management has the responsibility of assessing knowledge and determining its feasibility in achieving the goals of the organization. Lack of such skills is crucial and may undermine the success of any organization.

References

Bohn, R 1994, ‘Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge’, Sloan Management Review, pp. 61–73.

Campos, E & Sanchez, M 2003, ‘Knowledge management in the emerging strategic business process: Information, complexity and imagination’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 7 no. 2, pp. 5-17.

Cohen, W & Levinthal, D 1990, ‘Absorptive Capacity: a New Perspective on Learning and Innovation’, Administration Science Quarterly, vol. 35, pp. 128-152.

Coombs, R & Hull, R 1998, ‘Knowledge Management Practices and Path-dependency in Innovation’, Research Policy, vol. 27 no. 3, pp. 237-253.

Davenport, T & Short, J 1990, ‘The new Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign’, Sloan Management Review, pp. 11–27.

Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H 1995, The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York.

Nonaka, I 1990, A Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation, Nihon KeizaiShimbun, Tokyo.

Nonaka, I 1991, ‘The knowledge creating company’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 69 no. 6, pp. 96–104.

Polanyi, M 1966, The Tacit Dimension, Routledge, London.

Ryle, G 1949, The Concept of Mind, Hutchinson, London, U. K.

Soliman, F 1998, ‘Optimum Level of Process Mapping and Least Cost Business Process Re-Engineering’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, vol. 18 no. 5, pp. 810-816.

Von, H 1987, ‘Cooperation between Rivals: Informal Know-How Trading’, Research Policy, vol. 16, pp. 291-302.

Click Here To Order Now!