|
Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology |
Refereed Article A2:The limitations of knowledge management and competitive aAdvantage |
|
04:01 |
|
David McLaughlin McLaughlin, D. (2006). The limitations of knowledge management and competitive aAdvantage. Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 4(1). Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://www.naccq.ac.nz/bacit/0401/2006McLaughlin_Know_manage.htm AbstractCompetitive advantage is an attribute that organisations strive for. The weapon of choice that many select is a Knowledge Management System but sadly enough, numerous of these implementations fail. This review will investigate research performed on a variety of aspects, including the knowledge management paradigm, limitations, and acceptance. The discussion focuses on the issues related to the delivery of effective knowledge management productivity. KeywordsKnowledge management, knowledge management systems 1. INTRODUCTIONKnowledge can be a point of difference for an organisation, giving true competitive advantage over a rival if it can be managed properly. The use of information technology to exploit knowledge management is an area many organisations are becoming increasingly interested in. The problem is that most Knowledge Management Systems don’t live up to promises made by the designer. To investigate the limitations of using Information Technology (Butler, 2003, Hirschheim & Klein, 1989 and Wickramasinghe, 2003) to deliver knowledge management, this paper will look at the whole life cycle of the product to understand if any item may influence the outcome. User requirements are discussed by Butler (2003) and Hirschheim and Klein (1989) as well as the methodology used to create the Knowledge Management System. With the aid of Wickramasinghe (2003), the value of creating the right organisational culture to extract the best out of a Knowledge Management System is reviewed. The culture of an organisation is researched by Yolles (2005) to find a healthy model, while we look at possible shifts that an organisation may make in the future implementations in an article from Wensley (2004). By addressing the problems presented in this review it is believed that with further research focused on these issues, a system can be produced that will truly harness the concept of a Knowledge Management System. Knowledge management was defined by Wigg (1993) as dealing with the process of creating value from an organisation’s intangible assets. This is a concept that many organisations have been trying to harness with the use of information technology (Butler, 2003; Hirschheim and Klein, 1989 and Wickramasinghe, 2003) since the 1990’s with limited success. The intent of this literature review is to survey a variety of slants on the knowledge management paradigm. Butler (2003), Hirschheim and Klein (1989) and Wickramasinghe (2003) use case based research to understand limitations of Knowledge management using information technology. These three articles form the basis of this literature review as real systems are used, for the most part to underpin the authors’ theories. The last two articles (Yolles 2005 and Wensley 2004) were introduced to expand on a major thread of argument that developed in the case studies concerning the concept and use of knowledge management to provide competitive advantage for an organisation. The paper by Yolles (2005) has some interesting insights into knowledge management and the organisation. 2. RESEARCH METHODS AND FINDINGSThe research methods in the case studies (Butler, 2003, Hirschheim and Klein, 1989 and Wickramasinghe, 2003) are of a qualitative approach, employing interpretive methods to analyse the data. Of the three case-study-based papers above, I found Butler’s paper (2003) had the most subjectivity in its analysis. By quoting actors directly affected in the case studies, Butler (2003) could show a depth of insight that was gained from each case that would not be seen by simply reviewing organisational documentation. Yolles (2005) presents a conceptual paper looking at Organisational Intelligence using previous research to support his work, whereas Wensley (2004) objectively editorialises an article from the New York Times (Schumer and Roberts, 2005) which broaches the subject of free trade and its affect on organisational knowledge management. 2.1 Knowledge Management ParadigmWickramasinghe (2003) and Butler (2003) both view knowledge as a multi-faceted entity, having both explicit and tacit value. Wickramasinghe (2003, pp. 296-297) describes explicit knowledge as being an objective element of knowledge, primarily having an impact on process, where as tacit knowledge is accepted as being more “know-how” information residing in an actor’s memory. If Butler (2003) and Wickramasinghe (2003) are to be believed, the nature of knowledge and the epistemological dimensions that it takes are major barriers that information technology practitioners face in developing a system that delivers a true knowledge management paradigm. Butler (2003, p. 145) states that the Knowledge management System of today is nothing more than a Data Processing System having no effect on creation or innovation in respect to knowledge. Some of the analysis that Butler (2003) puts forward loses credibility as the selected audience for a Knowledge management System shifts in the findings from the clients named in the requirements to the subject matter experts. Better insight into this theory is defined by Wickramasinghe (2003) with a view that knowledge is separated into objective and subjective categories. Objective knowledge primarily has an impact on process and best practices, whereas subjective knowledge, normally tacit in nature, is more involved with supporting and fostering innovation. The three cases that Wickramasinghe (2003) studied showed the proposed Knowledge management System had no impact on innovative thinking, therefore reducing it to an organisational memory system. A quote from Galliers and Newell (2001, p.609) that Butler (2005, p.144) used shows the bias that he and Wickramasinghe (2003) hold when reviewing the analysis of the case studies: “Knowledge management (is) the most recent in a long line of fads and fashions embraced by the Information Systems community that have little to offer. Rather, we argue for a refocusing of our attention back on the management of data, since Information Technology processes data not information and certainly not knowledge”. All the information about epistemology and its management has not considered the limitations of information technology when trying to deliver a functional Knowledge management System that can cover all of the requirements. 2.2 Physical LimitationsThe physical issues for technology appeared to be the sheer volume of data that must be stored, searched, retrieved and presented to the user in a timely fashion in a format that is user friendly. Wickramasinghe (2003, p. 303) addresses these problems as does Butler (2003, p. 149) but neither gives the impression that it is of major concern, in fact Wickramasinghe (2003, p. 308) gives evidence, through the case studies, that implementations have improved markedly over time, as does Zack (1999), believing that Lotus Notes and the Internet will provided useful environments to create future Knowledge Management Systems. 2.3 Design LimitationsThe challenge data management practitioners of today have is to fully utilise knowledge management paradigms with the use of information technology to produce quality Knowledge Management Systems. As a starting point, Hirschheim and Klein (1989) give an overview of four paradigms used in Information Systems Development. By using variations of epistemological and ontological theories, Hirschheim and Klein (1989) introduced the design paradigms; functionalism (objective-order), social relativism (subjective-order), radical structuralism (objective-conflict) and neohumanism (subjective-conflict). Each paradigm was impinged by assumptions that created underlying design flaws were only amplified when used to design the Knowledge Management Systems presented in Butler’s (2003) case studies. The research of Hirschheim and Klein (1989) showed that a poor or inappropriate design methodology can at best reduce the effectiveness of any knowledge management system designed. For example, the use of a functionalism paradigm will likely lead to a Knowledge Management System that meets conceptual needs but not that of the end user (Hirschheim and Klein, (1989) p, 1204) whereas social relativism will produce the mirror image of this. The need to ensure that the correct design paradigm is selected when converging user requirements into a working model is a view that Wensley (2004) took when he editorialised a shift in knowledge creation requirements by western countries in order to obtain competitive advantage. Conceptually, Wensley (2004) reports that organisations need to challenge and encourage risk taking so that new knowledge can be created. This knowledge should be customised to focus on niche product and service delivery to the customer. 2.4 Organisational Culture and AcceptanceOne prevalent issue that arose from the case study material ((Butler, 2003, Hirschheim and Klein, 1989 and Wickramasinghe, 2003) was the lack of acceptance of delivered Knowledge Management Systems. Each author has their own view as to why this failure occurs, as Hirschheim and Klein (1989, p. 1204) point out, the end product needs to match the promised requirements to ensure satisfaction. This is echoed by Butler (2003) with his case data showing varied success dependant on the deliverables produced. However Wickramasinghe (2003, p. 307) proposes that the organisations themselves need to create a sharing culture if Knowledge Management Systems have any chance of survival. Yolles (2005, p. 103) does put forward that organisations have a tendency to create sub-cultures where managers take responsibility for their own areas of interest. This ethnographic phenomenon could hinder the sharing culture model in an organisation. 3. DISCUSSIONThe research methods selected fit well with a qualitative approach, as Collis and Hussey (2003) see qualitative research as being more subjective in nature, reflecting on perceptions in order to understand social and human activities. By using this method in the case studies, Butler (2003) and Wickramasinghe (2003) were able to view the opinion of different actors to gain an overview which could not be reached using a quantitative approach. This point can be proved further by Butler’s (2003) use of quotes throughout the paper. The quotations from stakeholders across the different studies showed that the perception of what had been achieved could be differentiated. The selection of Yolles’s (2005) paper was to achieve some insight into subjective knowledge in an organisation and how to capture it. The discussion of knowledge and the different forms that it can take produced the major debate in the concept of the Knowledge Management System. The evidence shown by Butler (2003) and Wickramasinghe (2003) from analysing the case material, proved the theory that innovate thinking and subjective knowledge weren’t being captured by these implementations. Further research is required to discover whether the paradigm of the Knowledge Management System has shifted over time or whether the practitioner has always attempted to locate this knowledge type. The question of physical limitation could be answered by viewing issues over time. The efficiency that Wickramasinghe’s (2003) case work showed gave evidence that delivery of the Knowledge Management System model has improved over time and has no reason not to continue. The theory of improvement over time may also be applied to design limitations. The design paradigm of neohumanism (subjective-conflict) introduced by Hirschheim and Klein (1989) provides a theory (as yet untested) of how best Knowledge Management Systems can reach their full potential. It is up to researchers and practitioners to find the right mix of paradigmatic theory that might unlock the full usefulness of Knowledge management in Information Technology (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989, p. 1213). Butler (2003) and Wickramasinghe (2003) bring up points in respect of knowledge capture limitations and the culture shift needed for acceptance then Yolles (2005, p. 113) brings them together by surmising that organisational intelligence is intimately linked with a learning organisation and that, in fact, organisational intelligence rather than knowledge management will affect the fitness of an organisation. 4. CONCLUSIONIn finishing, the question not answered is one of definition. If the systems studied by Butler (2003), Hirschheim and Klein (1989) and Wickramasinghe (2003) are not true Knowledge Management Systems but are in fact Organisational Memory Systems or similar, are they a failure? These systems were still proved to enhance competitive advantage to the organisations that used them (Butler, 2003 and Wickramasinghe, 2003) and it is important not to discard this endeavour because the product doesn’t perfectly match the knowledge management paradigm. 5. ACKNOLWDGEMENTSThe author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor Krassie Petrova for their advice and help, and to acknowledge the contribution of the copy editor Catriona Carruthers towards improving the presentation of this article. REFERENCESButler, T. (2003). From data to knowledge and back again: understanding the limitations of KMS. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(3), 144-155. Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research. A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Galliers, R.D., & Newell, S. (2001). Back to the future: from knowledge management to data management. In Global Co-Operation in the New Millennium, The 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, June 27-29, 2001. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199-1216. Schumer, C., & Roberts, P.C. (2004, January 6). Some Thoughts about Free Trade. New York Times, p. A27 Wensley, A. (2004). The Big Picture. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 1-2. Wickramasinghe, N. (2003). Do we practise what we preach?: Are knowledge management systems in practice truly reflective of knowledge management systems in theory? Business Process Management Journal, 9(3), 295-316. Wigg, K (1993). Knowledge Management Foundations,Boston, MA: Schema Press. Yolles, M. (2005). Organisational intelligence. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 99-114. Zack, M.H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), pp. 45-58. Retrieved June 15 2005 from http://web.cba.neu.edu/~mzack/articles/kmarch/kmarch.htm Home | Issue Index | About BACIT
| |||
