A good operational definition of knowledge management is the deliberate introduction of an improved and more effective information environment (Koenig, 1999, p. 77) My Answer: Knowledge, by definition: is broad and wide in its scope. This statement seems to imply knowledge to be of an explicit nature.
Explicit knowledge is “information or knowledge that is set out in tangible form” (Koenig, May 2012): which refers to those information which has been put in words or writing, for example, rules, procedures, user manuals and databases. Koenig scopes the statement from a practical and enterprise viewpoint, by using words such as “operational definition”. We assume that Koenig relates the concept into operational practice and apply this discipline to support the routine functions or activities of a certain specific business domain or organization.
Similarly “deliberate introduction” implies that there is a systematic methodology, possibly with gradual introduction and careful planning. It could well-meant that users and owners of this knowledge management system are well-equipped with skills and are being educated with appropriate trainings. The most Important aspect of this statement Is that It defines the objective of knowledge management briefly and It Illustrates the output of knowledge management in a simplified context – that is to achieve an “improved” and “more effective Information environment”.
The statement also covers the essentials of knowledge management holistically from the enterprise practice. Page 1 PART A (II) KM Is] the capability of an organization to create new knowledge, disseminate It throughout the organization and embody It In products, services and systems. (Monika & Attacked, 1995, p. 58) To better understand the notion of this statement, it is beneficial to understand the background of Monika and Ticktack’s theories and their work.
In the work of these individuals which gradually becomes that of organizational knowledge through a process illustrated by the following theory (see Figure la & b, or more commonly known as SEC’ model). They identified two dimensional theory of knowledge creation, namely epistemological and ontological, wherein which it covers the two common types of knowledge – explicit and tacit. Tacit knowledge, as opposed to explicit knowledge; is more difficult to articulate or transfer to another person because it often arises out of personal experience.
They also illustrate how individual knowledge can be “amplified” throughout the organization through four modes of knowledge conversion (four modes: colonization, sterilization, combination, and intercalation), under five conditions (five notations: Intention, Autonomy, Fluctuation and Creative Chaos, Redundancy, as well as Requisite Variety) via five phases (five phases: sharing tacit knowledge, creating concepts, Justifying concepts, building an archetype, and cross-leveling knowledge).
Figure 1 a: Spiral of organizational knowledge creation Figure b: SEC’ model From the statement, it is understood that new found knowledge can be “disseminated” to the whole of organization; such that, its output can be seen from its new or existing products, services or systems. The new knowledge can be created by converting tacit knowledge to explicit and back from explicit to tacit in cyclical process, by repeated practice to become a new habit or skill.
Disseminating the new knowledge into the organization can be achieve by transferring this new knowledge into organizational body of knowledge, through documenting, practice and incorporating it into company processes and business routine, eventually taking shape in the form of new products or services (note: systems are assume to be company’s processes or business functions). Page 2 The statement is more relevant to be theoretical than practical. There are some ambiguities about the statement.
It lacks measurable component and provide grounds for rebuttals arguments; for example the use of words like “capability of organization”, “disseminate throughout”, and “embody it in products, services and systems”. Contrast this against the Kenning’s statement, “introduction of an improved and more effective information environment”; whereby there are ways and means to devise some benchmark performance measurements to gauge an improved radioactivity or measure an effective team by task or result oriented accomplishments.
This statement is appropriate for business practice, especially the industry field under the influence of Superintendent culture. In this definition, the most note- worthy aspect is “embody it in products, services and systems”. It illustrates the importance of embedding an appropriate KM system within an organization.