1 / 10

thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM

thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM. JC. key question/s for KM. does the KM approach add insights not otherwise obtainable ? if no, why use its language – confusing at best ? IT, decision-making, strategy, OT, economics, etc. more or less manage OK without K-word

xue
Download Presentation

thinking about KM as an academic activity or KM’ing KM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. thinking about KM as an academic activityor KM’ing KM JC

  2. key question/s for KM • does the KM approach add insights not otherwise obtainable ? • if no, why use its language – confusing at best ? • IT, decision-making, strategy, OT, economics, etc. more or less manage OK without K-word • but if yes, how and why ? • can we use the term ‘knowledge’ without also ‘engaging uncertainty’ ? • Simon is not alone – Knight, Nelson & Winter, Archer, etc. – to say nothing of Proust, Whitman, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. Monieson KM seminar

  3. first – the rationalist KM’ers • core premise – no consideration of uncertainty • complete data is available – at least in principle – no prescriptions for dealing with critical absences • conceptualizing and bridging between data, information, knowledge and purposive action. grounding in Ackoff (1989) • principal problematics: • transformation of data into reasoned / optimal action • transfer of data, information or knowledge (the K-sharing agenda) • reverse-engineering of best practice into appropriate data, information and knowledge • KM as a general (non contextual) methodology to address these • e.g. Gloet & Berrell JoKM v7 #1 2003; Waddell & Stuart TQM v20 #1 2008 Monieson KM seminar

  4. Gloet & Burrell JoKM 2003 Monieson KM seminar

  5. Monieson KM seminar

  6. Waddell & Stewart TQM 2008 • KM important to SCA (Daniel Bell etc.) • KM process turns data into info and K • IT versus Humanist paradigm • KM defined as means to gather & share info & improve performance • 77% - employees communicate about customer needs • 15% - incentive schemes • 56% - ‘best practices’ were measured, reported & followed • 58% - a feeling of teamwork • 70% - their organizations had sound financial performance indicators • 47% - employee satisfaction • 67% - customer satisfaction • KM – fosters info sharing and learning from each other Monieson KM seminar

  7. Simon APSR 1985 • substantive versus procedural rationality • substantive – actor’s goals and situation’s characteristics • these cannot be determined – thus: • procedural – actor’s ‘subjective representation’ of both • cognitive approach versus ‘behavioral’ • bounded rationality is not irrationality • rational versus humanist - abstract versus political • Simon is considering alternatives - NOT working the distinction Monieson KM seminar

  8. Simon versus G&B or W&S • G&B / W&S see no problem with BR • discussion around ‘tacit K’ leads to ?? • org. communications – org. as mechanical system • Simon’s project is to ‘engage uncertainty’ in human affairs • types of U (Spender 1989) • ignorance • indeterminacy • others • engaging uncertainty means Δ implicit Model of Man • ‘bringing the men back in’ – but what ‘men’? • humanism versus hyper-rationalism • no collision of paradigms Monieson KM seminar

  9. Boisot & Canals / Carlile • Boisot & Canals – JEE 2004 - info and freedom of choice (agency) • info as capacity for work (in-the-world) • subjectivist versus objectivist (situated versus abstracted) • Bayesian (learning) • pass-through from tacit to explicit as learning mechanism • no collision of paradigms • Carlile Org Sci v15 #5 2004 collides positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism into three K-types: • logical • situated semantically • situated politically • boundaries to knowledge & communications across boundaries • boundary objects • shared language • specified actor concerns (admits the individual) • negotiate a practice (re-situate in both in-the-world dimensions) Monieson KM seminar

  10. bottom line: KM is what you make of it • admits you (the individual theorizing) as • a mentalizing abstraction • experiencing the world • acting in it, passively • being an agent, actively • constructing it • > an excuse to ‘re-language’ what we do already ? • an opportunity to ‘engage uncertainty’ e.g. • Cyert & March (1963) • Nelson & Winter (1984 p.4) • what strategies are open to you? Monieson KM seminar

More Related