Cognitive science describes knowledge as understandings, insights, and practical abilities possessed by individuals which are necessary for working intelligently. With time, knowledge can then be processed into other forms including records, tools, cultural values, or ethics within organizations or communities. The transformations resulting from knowledge lead to overall well-being or progress within a community or firm (Zhang & Zhao, 2006; Bhatt, 2001; Wright & McMahan, 1992). It is widely acknowledged that knowledge is a primary factor in making societal, organizational, and personal behavior intelligent. Knowledge Management (KM), on the other hand, is the model through which information is converted to actions or tangible evidence by making it accessible to people who can utilize it (Dalkir, 2005). The concept of KM has been in existence for a long time, compared to the term (Quintas et al., 1997). Even in cultural settings over history, the theme of KM thrived. For instance, traditionally, elders, medicine men, and midwives in communities have been avenues of passing knowledge from generation to generation. Additionally, writers, teachers, librarians, managers have applied the concept of KM though the term was not in use (Dalkir, 2005).
Currently, most of the available literature on KM focusses on its two distinct orientations. First, there is the orientation that promotes the use of Information Technology (IT) as the foundation of advancing KM within organizations and the second one improving the social attitude, in which people play a significant role in the progression of information distribution. However, in the perspective of an organization, Human Resource Management (HRM) is a vital tool in advancing KM. Against this backdrop, there is a need for reinvention of HRM for effective contribution of the link between KM and Human Resource Development (HRD) (Prieto Pastor et al., 2010). Recognizing the positive impacts of KM to organizational success, this paper will review various scholarly sources. Likewise, it will also provide practical ways of addressing the challenges experienced in Knowledge Management within organizations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Understanding Knowledge Management
Knowledge Management is an essential aspect of any organization aiming to make a significant impact and achieve its goals. With the constant proliferating of competitors, the significance of addressing the talent gap within organizations has become more vital (Zhang & Zhao, 2006; Bhatt, 2001; Gold et al., 2001). Increasingly, knowledge is cherished as an important article of trade merged with productivity. The proverbial assertion that ‘ knowledge is power ’ still holds true. Unlike past times where knowledge was being hoarded by individuals because that was what made them valuable to an organization, today’s age requires knowledge sharing to make a significant impact. The paradigm shift within current firms is the realization that knowledge sharing is a key factor for growth. In this respect, any organization that shares information with its employees grows stronger and more competitive. For the development of Human Resource (HR) within an organization, people must have access to relevant information. Thus, the epicenter of KM is knowledge sharing.
Dalkir (2005) notes that ‘KM is perhaps best categorized as a science of complexity. Nobody knows very much, but the important thing to realize is that they do not even know what is to be known.’ Management of knowledge includes capturing and storing the information or knowledge as well as acknowledgment of intellectual assets. When asked, most leaders in organizations will attest that the greatest asset they own is the knowledge possessed by their employees. Harman and Brelade (2007) describe KM as ‘the acquisition and use of resources to create an environment in which information is accessible to individuals and in which people acquire, share and use that information to develop their knowledge and are encouraged and enabled to apply their knowledge for the benefit of the organization.’ Another common description of KM is that ‘It is the deliberate and systematic coordination of an organization’s people, technology, processes, and organizational structure to add value through reuse and innovation. This coordination is achieved through creating, sharing, and applying knowledge as well as through feeding the valuable lessons learned and best practices into corporate memory to foster continued organizational learning’ (Dalkir, 2005).
Further, Dalkir (2005) acknowledges that though knowledge is viewed as a commodity, it has outstanding features different from others. He, therefore, cites several characteristics of knowledge. Firstly, though used broadly, knowledge cannot be consumed. Secondly, he reckons that transferring knowledge does not result in any loss. Further, he emphasized that knowledge is abundant but has little use, and lastly, employees possess most of the organizational knowledge. The success of a firm is determined by how it utilizes the available information. In the current knowledge age, therefore, what companies need is to complement the knowledge available through their employees. More than ever, what matters is not how many employees an organization has but rather how the employees complement the organizational goals. Human Resource Development, therefore, needs to be anchored in the lessons gained through the organization work. Knowledge Management as an approach must fully utilize the knowledge base within the organization, merging it with the potential of each employee (Dalkir, 2005).
Importance of Knowledge Management
There are four major areas where KM is vital for any individual and organization, whether governmental or non-governmental. With the globalization of trade, many firms are international and based on different cultural and linguistic settings. As a result, there is a need to understand the performance in specific areas and globally. For firms to benefit from globalization, there must be thorough knowledge sharing within them. Secondly, companies are ever becoming leaner with speed, efficiency, and productivity maximized using fewer resources. Workers need the knowledge to be able to work more smartly and with fewer resources. Thirdly, the famous ‘corporate amnesia' which results in increased mobility among workers forces firms to embrace KM. It is rare to find a knowledge worker willing to spend his entire life within the same organization. Due to this, knowledge must be captured and stored for future reference. Finally, there is the burgeoning technological advance, with an ever-present demand to stay online and respond through universal connectivity. An organization needs to stay updated on what kind of technology to use, its limitations and where it must improve (Dalkir, 200; Bhatt, 2001).
Knowledge management has led to the development of intellectual assets within an organization’s structure. These kinds of assets draw the boundary between institutions. In the current era of ever increasing knowledge, visible differences are illustrated by what an organization is capable of doing. This is the thinking behind the ‘difference between the book value and the market value of an organization' (Zhang & Zhao, 2006; Dalkir & Liebowitz, 2000). The value of retaining this knowledge within an organization means that the business is more sustainable compared to others. Two simple examples of intellectual capital may arise from KM within an organization. These are expertise essential to accomplish a particular performance level and procedural expertise to integrate and implement certain kinds of knowledge (Dalkir, 2005).
Knowledge Management has numerous benefits to workers, professional groups and a firm in general. For individual employees, KM assists them perform their jobs faster and save time through quick decision-making and problem-solving. It also helps workers build a sense of mutual bond and belongingness to the organization. In addition to these, KM helps individuals to stay updated while also giving them opportunities to contribute to team decision making. To a professional group, KM assists in skill development, promotion of peer-to-peer mentoring, enhancing effective networking and collaborative handling of tasks, development of profession ethics and a common language of work. Organizationally, KM helps in propelling the plan, problem-solving, product and services marketing, innovation, increasing competitiveness, and establishing the organizational history. Knowledge Managemen, therefore, a good avenue for generating new insights, recording experiences, improving business procedures, and enhancing decision making (Dalkir, 2005).
Knowledge Management Systems
Knowledge Management as a process within a business must aim to systematically capture, assemble, manage, and distribute information within the firm so as to increase performance through replication of past best practices hence reducing the cost in both times, labor and finance in other projects (Dalkir, 2005; Bhatt, 2001). Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) are tools to effect the management of knowledge that can be manifested through various practices (Hahn & Subramani, 2000). For the sake of HRD, mixing of strategies, technology, and procedures is vital for the effectiveness of an organization. Workshops, meetings, peer-to-peer mentoring, training, and task management platforms are some of the strategies organizations can employ in empowering their HR base. The goal of an organization’s KMS is to ensure that the knowledge possessed by employees remains with the organization even when they leave the team. This employee's knowledge, whether acquired through work experience or training, is essential for addressing future work challenges within the organization. Therefore a good KMS must be able to update the knowledge base of the organization regularly (Alavi & Leidner, 1999).
The idea of storing and sharing of knowledge within businesses is not new. Historically, there have been numerous training and employee development programs, work ethics, techniques, and procedures, as well as manuals. Every organization that shares this knowledge reduces the costs that would otherwise arise in improving the company’s effectiveness and efficiency (Wright & McMahan, 1992). However, new KM Systems utilize technology to sort, filter and disseminate information systematically. The advantage of using Information Technology (IT) in KM results from the ease of access through the creation of a one-stop shop for sharing knowledge within an organization (Alavi & Leidner, 1999). The aim of the current business KMS is to ensure elimination of ineffective procedures through Business Process Re-engineering Gupta et al. (2000) cite that with omnipresent competition, companies need to remain innovative, reduce costs, and increase markets to win the ever mutating, hard-to-understand consumer.
The perspectives of the controlling structure take shape based on the nature of the organization and the goals set therein. From a business perspective, the KMS should focus on locations, reasons, and boundaries within which knowledge will be managed. This entails the development of products and services, marketing strategies, alliances, and investments. Further, the focus should be on formatting, consolidating, directing, simplifying and observing the performance of the business system. Finally, the hands-on angle focuses on the application of skills and knowledge to implement business goals (Dalkir, 2005).
A good KMS must be able ‘to capture, catalog, preserve, disseminate the expertise and knowledge that are part of organizational memory, which typically resides within the organization in an unstructured way' (Gupta et al., 2000). The collapse of temporal and spatial boundaries through IT led to a significant revolution in the development of KM Systems. It is important for an organization to use technology in the management of its knowledge to achieve growth and survival. In this regard, the organizational theory asserts that ‘the only competitive advantage a firm has in the 21st century is what they know and how they use it' (Zhang & Zhao, 2006; Gupta et al., 2000). In this case, the need to embrace technology cannot be overemphasized. The two primary KM trends incorporated into organizational systems are the measurement of organizational intellectual property and knowledge mapping. The former focuses on benchmarking of a new business venture based on experiences, indices, and ratios, while the latter concentrates on recording knowledge gained by individuals and sharing it through the organization (Gupta et al., 2000).
To adequately assess the benefits drawn by employees, a KMS must carry out monitoring and evaluation of both individual and organizational performance. The follow-up to and evaluation should lead to policy reformulation that will ensure information is ever available when needed. Likewise, the system must recognize that most knowledge exists in the heads of people. Therefore, proper structures must be put into consideration to ensure that the knowledge available within the boundaries of a company is properly used (Quintas et al., 1997). The configuration must maintain unbroken content updates and flow of knowledge to all. Besides, the system must encourage subsequent innovations. The merits and demerits of applying particular knowledge must also be noted so as to encourage people to rethink on fresh ways of addressing some current problems (Alavi & Leidner, 1999).
Types of Knowledge within Organizations
While knowledge is an important asset to an organization, it is good to note that it manifests in different forms. Thus, management of such knowledge requires a clear understanding of its nature, and how it can be tapped from the source. In the development of knowledge management systems, every configuration must consider the implications on the final output of the system (Uriarte, 2008). This is a common challenge in KM. The mode of capturing, coding, interpreting, and disseminating must zero rate any possibility of information distortion. This is because the outcome of the use of information is the only determinant of the sustainability of a particular business. Drawing from these arguments, it is essential then to understand the kinds of knowledge available to an organization
Knowledge exists primarily in two forms. These are tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. King (2009) asserts that ‘Explicit knowledge exists in the form of words, sentences, documents, organized data, and computer programs and other explicit forms. If one accepts the useful "difficult-to-articulate" concept of tacit knowledge, a fundamental problem of KM is to explicate tacit knowledge and then to make it available for use by others.’ Tacit knowledge refers to knowledge stored in a person’s brain. On the other hand, explicit knowledge relates to recorded knowledge in either printed or electronic form. Despite the differences between these two types of knowledge, both can be created through exchange or invention. One notable aspect of explicit knowledge is that it may be incorporated into product design, processing, marketing, and management system. The primary outcome of both is affiliations or associations (Uriarte, 2008). Tacit and Explicit knowledge guide the daily operations of an organization. One of the key challenges encountered in KM is transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge from an experienced worker. This proves difficult hence the assertion that the ‘biggest asset of an organization is its employees.' However, valuable tacit knowledge may be converted into explicit knowledge through actions that can be recorded (Dalkir, 2005).
Tacit Knowledge
The distinct characteristic of tacit knowledge is that it is subjective. Primarily, it is stored in a person’s head. This type of knowledge is gained through experience, training, and study. In many instances, it improves through trial and error, and through experiencing success or failure. Due to its specificity and subjectivity, Tacit knowledge is hard to expound, record or express. It is embedded in personal perceptions, instincts, and estimations. Moreover, since tacit knowledge is highly subjective and personalized, sharing it depends on the willingness of the person, his or her ability to articulate what he understands, and the individual ability to use the KMS within the organization. Consequently, tacit knowledge within an organization can be shared through workshops, meetings, dialogues, and on-the-job training, mentoring, among other avenues. In an organization, the individuals with enormous tacit knowledge also tend to remain in the organization for a long time. Such people are expected to adapt and deal with challenging situations faster. Further, they can easily collaborate with others because they understand the vision of the firm (Uriarte, 2008; Dalkir, 2005).
One key challenge for KM and HRM teams is the identification of the tacit knowledge that is essential to the organization. Once such knowledge is identified within the organization, it becomes a valuable asset for the advancement of the company goals. Likewise, some of the tacit knowledge may be turned into the enterprise’s intellectual property hence giving it an advantage over its competitors. Because it is difficult to replicate, tacit knowledge is a foundation for the sustainability of an organization’s business interests. An organization is therefore required to carry out a thorough examination of its workers to identify those with unique capabilities, such as computer programming or other technological expertise. Through the identification of such talent, the organization can use and develop its intellectual assets (Uriarte, 2008).
Explicit Knowledge
This refers to knowledge that is recorded in such media as guidebooks, databases, websites and similar options. It is usually shared freely within the organization’s KMS in a structured manner and encompasses everything that can be coded, documented and archived. Some of the common explicit knowledge forms in organizations’ KMS are reports, memos, patents, business plans, and manuals among others. These characterize the experiences of the body stored in formats that can be easily accessed by employees or customers. Information Technology is used in many firms to store and sort this information for use by employers or interested parties. It is important to note that explicit knowledge is derived directly from tacit knowledge even if the two are mutually complementary. This is because unless someone has the personal know-how, which is tacit knowledge; he or she cannot understand explicit knowledge (Dalkir, 2005). A good example is that it would be hard for a person to understand a particular subject if he has no tacit knowledge about the subject. Also, unless tacit knowledge can be converted into explicit knowledge, the organization cannot benefit. In this regard, Uriarte (2008) emphasizes that tacit knowledge is only useful when it can be transformed to practical and logical, explicit records.
Because explicit knowledge is already articulated and generalized, it can be very helpful in HRD. This is because it is a collection of all organizational experiences, which can be used to address current challenges and avoid future mistakes. This type of knowledge is unique to the organization and merges several insights into a one-stop knowledge base. In its practical form, explicit knowledge gives employees a highlight on best practices, professional ethics, assignment experiences, promotion information, and customer feedback among others. The advantage of explicit knowledge is that it can be shared using various media. It can thus be compiled in websites, databases, pictures, videos, or documented in printed formats. Due to its diverse forms, explicit knowledge can be useful to various people in different parts of the world. Multi-national companies using explicit knowledge understands market trends, trade policies, and other valuable information because they can be translated into other languages and forms (Dalkir, 2005).
Relationship between Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Knowledge Management allows organizations to convert personal knowledge to organizational knowledge. Through a dynamic method of relations between tacit and explicit knowledge, new knowledge can be generated while turning individual skills to company assets. Majorly, the creation of new knowledge arises from a two-way cycle between explicit and tacit knowledge. Through social interactions, observation, training, and mentoring individual tacit knowledge is converted to organizational knowledge. People can share familiarities and create a common tacit knowledge. Also, tacit knowledge can be applied to explain explicit knowledge using such avenues as diagrams or formulae. Also, some KMS combine and sort existing explicit knowledge that would otherwise not be useful or understandable when contained in one archive. Continuous interaction between various forms of knowledge leads to more understanding, new insights and eventually the birth of innovative business ideas.
Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems in Human Resource Development: Challenges and Solutions
Problems in KM can be classified as political, organizational, accessibility, and technological issues. Though KM is an essential resource for an organization, especially in HRD, there are still many existing loopholes. In many organizations, the common challenges include an overemphasis on individuals, technology, and isolating KM from company goals (Dalkir, 2005). Companies often ignore employees with talent and use inclusive ideals. For businesses to succeed in KM, individuals with useful tacit knowledge need recognition and support. The concept of KM need not be isolated from the workers but rather must be at the center of their daily input (Gupta et al., 2000).
Some firms place emphasis on technology without valuing developing soft-skills amongst their employees. This ignorance has proved to be a significant threat to the personal development of workers. The KM and HRD teams should work hand in hand to ensure that there is the wholesome development of their workforce. Successful KM in an organization thrives in a culture of focusing on people, knowledge, company goals and technology (Gold et al., 2001; Gupta et al., 2000). Likewise, KMS need to share varying information, packaged together in a way that is understandable to users. Interfaces also need to be user-friendly so as to avoid hiccups when consumers need a particular piece of information urgently. The structure of KMS needs to be geared towards collecting enabling knowledge that is useful to the organization setting, and that will give the organization a competitive advantage (Uriarte, 2008).
Importantly, KM must be aligned to the objectives of an organization. Without explicit consideration of the business goals, any quest to manage knowledge within an organization is futile. It is important for KM to address the corporate procedures and practices that generate that particular information. In this case, a firm should ‘ forge linkages between its structured and unstructured information in a way to use it for a particular problem/situation/paradigm' (Gupta et al., 2000). Also, understanding who needs the information and at what time is important. Hence, KMS must develop appropriate structures for disseminating knowledge on time. Many organizations face the challenge of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. As a significant undertaking, organizations must develop proper systems that will ensure experiences from employees are available for use by new hires (Gupta et al., 2000).
In summary, notable challenges include;
Lack of a business purpose
Knowledge management in some firms is an end in itself. In this case creation of a KMS is based on the premise that it will pay off at a later date, and that an efficient organization should share knowledge across its departments. Therefore, these organizations create KM programs just because they believe that an organization needs one. Thus, the KMS are mere vehicles for communicating and sharing in a group. Conversely, the goal of creating a KMS ought to be to deal with the pressing issues within the organization and use the knowledge appropriately (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998). The challenge of a KMS, in this case, is that it is not connected to the prevalent issues in an organization. To deal with this challenge Hahn & Subramani (2000) cite that organizations have, to begin with, particular problems that KMS can aid in solving. If well formulated a KMS can help to enhance productivity, time management, decision making, and efficiency.
Poor planning and funding
In some instances, companies put more emphasis on the pilot KM project, forgetting its final roll out. The support and attention given to pilots are because pilots are new. In the process, managers fail to make long-term plans for the KMS. As a result, transfers, shifts in the marketplace, changed focus and shortage of resources render the programs ineffective. To address this problem, managers should plan the pilot and official launch of the KMS concurrently (Liebowitz & Beckman, 1998).
Lack of accountability
Though critical to an organization, the success of a KMS is pegged on its leader. However, in the absence of accountability, KMS initiatives are bound to fail. The number of people assigned to lead this process depends on the size of the organization. Thus, while one or two people are enough for smaller organizations, big organizations require several people to lead KM initiatives. The roles of these people range from assisting project managers to extract useful lessons from their pursuits, editing and updating KM information current and establishing a hotline aimed at navigating the KM system. Further, there is a need to create room for feedback. This allows participants to share their opinions on whether or not tangible deliverables and valuable lessons were added to the organization’s knowledge base (Dalkir, 2005; Gupta et al., 2000; Hahn & Subraman, 2000)
Failure to customize
Knowledge management programs are viewed as a one-size-fits-all. Conversely, for the programs to be successful, they should be tailored to respond to needs of specific organizations (Gold et al., 2001). Likewise, when designed to cater for anyone in the organization, KM programs are more likely to be less useful and effective. The programs should also fit into an organization’s culture. Lastly, for KMS to be effective, they have to be linked tightly to an organization’s core values.
Failure to measure success
Although it’s tough to assess the progress of KM initiatives, the possibility is undeniable. Thus the two most important measures include process and outcome (Gold et al., 2001). Process measure is dependent on the nature of an organization’s KMS. Thus, it is geared towards establishing whether or not employees are doing what the organization would like them to do. On the other hand, the outcome measure is dependent on the objective that an organization’s KMS is aimed at achieving. This could range from enhanced productivity, reduced turnaround time. The premise upon which this is based is that focus on a specific business goal makes its tracking easy. In this regard, though it might be difficult to know when a KMS is being implemented, it’s possible to establish if employees are involved in activities that can be considered as KM. With this possibility, it becomes easy to assess progress towards achievement of the KMS goals (Prieto Pastor et al., 2010).
Conclusion
In conclusion, KM has been used historically by organizations and societies to distil knowledge held by its employees. Thus, KM has become one of the key determinants of the growth and success of any organization. To increase productivity, and earn competitive advantage every organization must embrace KM not only as a tool for employee development but also business growth. However, the challenges in pursuit of these are real. To address these challenges, organizations need to understand what they want to achieve, the existing knowledge gap, and the approach to be employed. A culture that embraces individual experts within a team must be incorporated. This will ensure that these people are given the right avenues to share and develop their skill for the benefit of the whole team and the organization at large. Further, KM must not be isolated from the business goals. Thus the KM and HRD teams must work hand in hand to ensure that their members receive what they need. Intelligent business groups admit that knowledge is a tremendous asset and its value increases over time. When this strength is harnessed well within a team, then the firm will continually have an advantage over its competitors.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS , 1 (2es), 1.
Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of knowledge management , 5 (1), 68-75.
Dalkir, K., & Liebowitz, J. (2011). Knowledge management in theory and practice . MIT Press.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Burlington: Elsevier Butterworth–Heinemann.
Gold, A. H., & Arvind Malhotra, A. H. S. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems , 18 (1), 185-214.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L. S., & Aronson, J. E. (2000). Knowledge management: practices and challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 100 (1), 17-21.
Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. R. (2000, December). A framework of knowledge management systems: issues and challenges for theory and practice. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Information systems (pp. 302-312). Association for Information Systems.
King, W. R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning (pp. 3-13). Springer US.
Liebowitz, J., & Beckman, T. J. (1998). Knowledge organizations: What every manager should know . CRC Press.
Pastor, I. M., Santana, P. P., & Sierra, C. M. (n.d.). Managing Knowledge Through Human Resource Practices: Emperical Examination of the Automotive Industry. Valladolid, Spain.
Prieto Pastor, I. M., Perez Santana, M. P., & Martín Sierra, C. (2010). Managing knowledge through human resource practices: empirical examination on the Spanish automotive industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 21 (13), 2452-2467.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: a strategic agenda. Long range planning , 30 (3), 385-391.
Uriarte, F. A. (2008). Introduction to Knowledge Management: A brief introduction to the basic elements of knowledge management for non-practitioners interested in understanding the subject . ASEAN Foundation.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management , 18 (2), 295-320.
Zhang, D., & Zhao, J. L. (2006). Knowledge management in organizations. Journal of Database Management , 17 (1), I.
