Knowledge Management and Knowledge Transfer - Literature review Example

Literature Review The aspect of knowledge management and transfer is a key concept in modern organizational and business world. According to Swan et.al (1999), the aspect of knowledge management appeared towards the end of 1990s and is regarded was a business craze. However, there has been extensive input in term of research in this aspect with organizations and businesses investing a lot of funds into this area of study (Alvesson and Karreman, 2001). It is estimated that around 80% of top leading businesses and organizations in the world are conducting research into knowledge management with around 68% having such projects underway. There has been also an increase in terms of attendance of conferences regarding knowledge management and transfer. (Prusak, 1999). According to Alavi & Leidner (2001), the aspect of knowledge management and transfer is defined in a broad and abstract way in reference to the epistemological debate derived from the Western philosophy, dating back to the Greek era. In recent years, there has been an increased interests in regard to treatment of knowledge as a very important asset in organization management. Therefore with increased interest in knowledge management, researchers specializing in information systems have diversified this aspect of knowledge management and transfer into another category of information systems referred to as knowledge management systems (KMS). Alavi & Leidner (2001) considers the aspect of knowledge management and transfer to be multi-faceted and complex. A large number of projects and activities in many organizations can be considered to be contributing to the aspect of knowledge. This projects involve creation of development plans, ways of monitoring and sharing of information. Therefore, many organizations are focusing on implementing initiatives and projects that are that have a focus on knowledge. In these organizations, there is emergence of knowledge teams and team leaders. However, very few organizations have fully implemented knowledge management and transfer aspects in all their operations. (Skyrme, 1999). The big question is why many organizations and businesses are directing large sums of money, time and other useful resources in projects involving knowledge management. This can be attributed to strive for survival in business environments characterized by stiff competition. According to McCampbell et al (1999), in an economy characterized with a lot of uncertainties, the only solution for businesses and organizations is to adopt knowledge based management projects. McCampbell et al (1999), goes further to state that only those companies that create knowledge and transfers it appropriately within its business operations can be successful. This is because of the ever changing business environment hence requiring the management to anticipate such changes and adopt appropriate and faster ways of knowledge and actions based on the knowledge. Definition of Knowledge management In as much as there are many organizations adopting knowledge management and transfer, there is no clear understanding as to the exact definition and meaning of knowledge management. Some authors refers to knowledge management as simply as kind of valuable information while others like Snowden (2000), states that the aspect of knowledge management is not as simple as people may think. Snowden goes further to state that knowledge management as an optimization, identification and active management of intellectual assets either as a characteristic knowledge possessed by a community or an individual or in form of explicit knowledge held intellectually. According to Swan et al. (1999), knowledge management is all about integration of social capital and intellectual individuals, aimed at improving the learning capabilities of organizations and also aspect of recognizing that knowledge is not just about information but a primary of any firm’s potential to innovate. It’s absolutely difficult for one to give a clear understanding of the aspect of knowledge management without going through the main concepts of knowledge and information and other related issues. The perceived confusion related to knowledge management arises due to the varied opinions by different scholars on the distinction between information and knowledge. There is a misconception of always trying to interchange the two terms and this can be disastrous effect in management of organizations. According to McCampbell et al., (1999), this confusion between information and knowledge has led to managers investing large sums of money into information technology projects that have yielded less output. Snowden (1999) goes ahead to state that defining knowledge is not important but stating points to distinguish it from information is more appropriate. However, other scholars find it important to have a clear understanding of all the element making up knowledge management. According to Davenport et al., (1999), knowledge is defined as a combination of experience with information, interpretation, context and reflection. Likewise, Prusak (1999), defines knowledge as a human characteristic of trait and distinguishes it from information in a way that only human being can obtain knowledge. For instance, Prusak (1999) argues that a book shelf can consist of many book volumes in a certain subject and this can shelf can be said to contain a lot of information but no justification that it contains knowledge. Sveiby (1999) further defines knowledge management as an activity that involves a process of knowing. In addition to that, Nurmi (1999) defines knowledge as something that has an effect on how things are. For instance, from the bookshelf analogy, in relation to knowledge, one doesn’t have to be interested with information lying passive on shelves and files. Therefore, Nurmi (1999) states that a knowledge business can be effected when there is a know-how inside the firm and needs of the customers and other people outside the firm. History of Knowledge Management and Knowledge Transfer The philosophy of knowledge and knowledge management dates back to the ancient Greece. During this era, knowledge was at least managed as work was performed. For instance during evolution, the hunters leaned and improved their skills with each successful hunt. This skills improved and were transferred from one generation to another hence illustrating the aspect of knowledge transfer and knowledge management activity. (Wiig, 1997) The aspect of studying knowledge management and transfer started recently i.e. late 90s and early ‘00s and has roots in many areas such as economics, business, sociology, management etc. According to Drucker (1999), the aspect of knowledge management can be based on work of an economist, Frederick Winslow Taylor whose studies majorly involved manual workers. Taylor categorized this workers as either being lazy or hard workers. He did not however agree with such kind of thought and focused on examining how these workers performed their duties and its inefficiencies. This was done by recording the necessary steps required to accomplish this task while ignoring the least important ones and helping them redesign the tools to make their work performance effective. He later found out that the use of traditional tools in performing work was always not the best approach in performing work and also receive input from these workers on what might make them work better. Taylor found out that, during that time, very little skills were involved in production hence claiming that application of knowledge is what makes workers productive (Drucker, 1999). Drucker therefore argues that with the emergence of several disciplines, the concepts and theories have changed over years from the Taylor-Task analysis to a more comprehensive Task Management and specific science management. This therefore makes Taylor’s work the basis of knowledge management and knowledge transfer. Knowledge Conversion and Creation According to Becerra-Fernandez et al. (2001), the sharing of explicit knowledge can be done through forms of communication and media. However, this kind of sharing is not possible in case of knowledge that is tacit. Becerra-Fernandez et al therefore states that this tacit knowledge can be communicated through a shared understanding between the parties involved. In some cases, the tacit knowledge must be converted to explicit knowledge before any sharing can be done. Nonaka (1994) states that there are four modes which can be used for knowledge conversion. This include, from tacit to tacit, explicit to explicit, tacit to explicit or explicit to tacit. In the tacit to tacit mode conversion, the knowledge is converted through interaction and sharing this information among individuals. The reason for a need to acquire tacit knowledge is because it is difficult for humans to perceive and explain this kind of knowledge. Nonaka refers to this mode as socialization i.e. in as much as it is easy for an adult to teach a child on how to do something, it is difficult to put the instructions int their own language. The second mode of explicit to explicit conversion involves social interactions that are aimed at reconfiguring the available information by categorizing, sorting, adding and decontextualizing the explicit knowledge. Nonaka (1994) calls this conversion combination. The process of mutual interactions over time leads to an expansion of the third and fourth modes. Therefore, this conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge as called externalization while the explicit to tacit conversion is referred to as internalization. Nonaka (1994) combines all the four processes into one process referred to as SECI which is acronym standing for Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization. The sharing of the existing knowledge and creation of new knowledge are the two main areas of focus when it comes to knowledge management practice. According to Skyrme and Amidon (1999), there are long-term advantages associated with constant creation of new knowledge. This process normally is carried out through the transfer of what is inside a person’s head i.e. the tacit knowledge that includes thoughts, actions, ideas and experiences to another person in a way that the future thinking and actions of a recipient are influenced. Therefore the knowledge creation process is a spiral process involving interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge. Technological Aspects of Knowledge Management. To attain knowledge, various organization relies widely on computers, the internet and even the intranets. The worldwide web development should be given much credit since it is responsible for making knowledge management practices and theories to spread widely the throughout the world within a short period. According to Albert and Bradley (1997), the internet was started as a program sponsored by Pentagon in 1969 and was called the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). It started as a network of computers interconnected together which were used to share amount of large data by the military personnel. By 1980s, it was also used in research laboratories and academic institutions. Internet was introduced to the businesses too after improvement of computers from mainframe to personal ones in the late 1980s. 35 million users were using the internet by 1997 (Albert and Bradley, 1997). This connectivity and flow of information has allowed organizations and also individual to share large amount of data and knowledge in a very easy way.             Information technology has widely help in knowledge management implementation. Its role is emerging as an integrator of communications technology, rather than solely a keeper of information. The key function of IT is that it has the capability of supporting collaboration communication and helping those who are searching for knowledge and information. (McCampbell et al., 1999). The effectiveness of organization, deployment of inter organizational and advance intellective have been greatly improved after the development of personal computers (Grover and Davenport, 2001). Social activities is another communication area that has been drastically affected by information technology. Computer network gives a way of limiting stovepipes, or barriers that always prevent the flow of knowledge innovation and free thinking.             The use of information technology is faced with a lot of challenges when applied in knowledge management practices. Some of the challenges include misconceptions between information and knowledge. The heavy loads of data stored and circulating by organizations may mistakenly be taken to mean storage and transfer of knowledge. According to Prusak (1999), there are very few organizational knowledge based projects are normally focused on data warehousing and the development of both document and intellectual applications. All this projects to some extent bear some relationship to knowledge management and transfer. Another challenge experienced when organizations mistakenly view knowledge as work that is done once information technology becomes operational. Ideally, the development of an information technology infrastructure for a knowledge based application does not mean that all the employees and all those affiliated to the organization will use it. This therefore creates a problem of organizations relying too much on information technology with neglect on the aspect of how this knowledge can be shared. According to Swan et al. (1999), this point can be illustrated with a study of two similar firms trying to make effort so as to capitalize on each other’s knowledge. This firms can be modelled to have a central office with other smaller offices distributed countrywide. One of the firms relies on information technology is establishing an internet with very little attention on the social networks which meant the individual networks had to create their own intranets to communicate with other. As a result of, a series of incompatible individual intranets were create with no evidence of knowledge sharing. However, the second firm establishes intranets that ensured easy communication with other branches through the utilization of the social networks. This system was relevant and easy to use since it was relying on the existing network hence sharing of knowledge. Therefore the first firm did little to recognize the need for creating knowledge and sharing it within the organization. Social Aspect of Knowledge Management The above case study highlights on the importance of a social aspect that involved knowledge sharing within the organization. The key to development of ideas or knowledge i.e. innovation within an organization is through sharing and interaction of ideas of different people. Therefore according to Sveiby (1999), this transfer of knowledge is done via social networks. The social context in which people are communicating and exchanging ideas becomes impotent in understanding the meaning. Skyrme and Amidon (1999) states the aspect of knowledge management is not done systematically and always considers the technological infrastructure, the culture of the organization, the people and the management. Skyrme and Amidon conclude that in the aspect of knowledge management, it is the organizational and human factors that determine the success of a knowledge program. According to Echeverri-Carroll (1999), organizations can benefit from inter-organizational and social networking. She further states that relational partnerships can be established to ensure frequent information exchange. This will ensure that firms will develop their products faster and all other processes will be faster that their competitors who may not have established such relationships. In addition to that, Weik and Roberts (1993) point out that organizations are basically a group of individuals who are oriented socially. Traditionally, from the knowledge management practice point of view, organizations’ address this issues in terms of social or technological. Employees are viewed by their managers during the management of knowledge as their best asset while those managers who value the technological approach will only focus on the information technology that will support knowledge management. According to Abecker et al. (1999), the effective management of knowledge requires a solution that involves both the technology and people.    Knowledge Management Practices in Organizations The concept of knowledge management is rooted and mainly used in many organizations in the business world. Wiig (2007) states that business can achieve two objectives through incorporations of knowledge management practices in their operations. The first objective achieved is act of making the enterprise systems as intelligent as possible and also to ensure viability and success. The ability of gaining understanding of the best value of the knowledge assets in the second objective achieved by this practice. In as much as the main users of knowledge management lie within the corporate community, this practice can benefit other organizations. There are four main types of knowledge management projects. (Davenport et al. 1999). The creation of repositories of knowledge focuses on the establishment of storage of external knowledge, an internal knowledge structured for storage such as research reports and informal internal knowledge. Other projects include those involved in improvement of knowledge access, enhancement of a knowledge environment and also managing the knowledge assets. According to Skyrme and Amidon (1999), a knowledge management project is characterized by holistic and systematic view of the whole knowledge agenda. This implies that those involved in undertaking such projects mush have a clear understanding of the strategic role which they are involved in, how knowledge can be applied in making decisions regarding the processes they are involved in and how the creation, sharing and use of knowledge can be improved. Skyrme and Amidon (1999) therefore declared the factors that are critical in the success of knowledge management project. These include having a strong link and a compelling vision both to the architecture and imperative of the business. Also, having a leadership knowledge and a culture for creating and sharing knowledge can be critical in the success of such projects. Lastly, other factors include having a continuous learning attitude, a well-developed and lay out infrastructure and a systematic knowledge process. In addition to that, McCampbell et al. (1999) states that factors that form the basis for effective transfer and sharing of knowledge include creation of networks and relationships. However, according to Lucier and Torsilieri (1999), programs that are considered less successful are characterized by lacking a specific business objective and having a program architecture that is incomplete and one that do not focus on building dynamics for organizational change, creation of knowledge and usage. These programs can also be defined but having an insufficient focus on the set objectives and lack of involvement of the top managers. In a similar manner, Snowden (1999), defines these less successful programs as being unable to articulate their objectives hence leading to mismatched expectations. An example of such a less successful program include one assuming that a technological tool for sharing explicit knowledge will automatically share tacit knowledge. Knowledge transfer According to Argote and Ingram (2000), the foundation of knowledge transfer forms the basis of competitive advantage among business organizations. Also, knowledge interactions among tasks, people and tools make it possible for such knowledge to be transferred to other forms and different contexts. Therefore, organizations can develop a competitive advantage over their competitors by ensuring knowledge is transferred internally and preventing any external transfer to its competitors. It is easier to transfer knowledge interactions involving people within the firms because of the similarity of people within the organization. (Goh, 2002) Therefore, through embedding knowledge in the interactions that involve people, the knowledge transfer can be affected both internally and externally. Therefore, the argument in relation to knowledge transfer by Argote and Ingram (2000) is that, the basis for ensuring competitive advantage in firms is through embedding knowledge in the interactions involving people, tools and tasks. According to Gupta (2000), the focus of knowledge transfer and its strategic role in intra-corporate flow of knowledge within business organizations started in the late 90’s and early 00’s. An exception in this case occurs when both the sociological and psychological aspects of knowledge transfer merge with the research stream and when the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation effects in individuals within an organization. Therefore, Gupta (2000), states that the issue of spreading the knowledge and making it accessible and usable between or within firms is the most fundamental part of the knowledge management. Argote and Ingram (2000) states that some terms related to knowledge management i.e. the coordination, creation, transfer ad integration of knowledge becomes the basis of competitive advantage in most firms. He goes further to state that knowledge transfer can be substituted with knowledge sharing, therefore for better exploration of knowledge transfer, the issue of knowledge sharing should not be ignored. This therefore implies that knowledge transfer is one of the fundamental processes of civilization, which is critical to development. Szulanski, (2000) argues that there has been little attention in regard to the fact that there are barriers affecting knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing since these have a negative effective effects on knowledge management. According to Szulanski, (2000), in as much as knowledge transfer between firms requires a lot of time, laborious and difficult, the current conceptions treat this transfer of knowledge as instantaneous and costless.  In an acknowledgement, the difficulty associated with knowledge transfer arises from the transfers are modelled.  Szulanski is state that this difficulty can be incorporated in the knowledge transfer by recognizing that is a process rather than act. In addition to that, the factors and stages of transfers correlate with the difficulty during the different stages of the transfer. The analysis expected is that factors influencing the opportunity to transfer of knowledge would be used to predict the knowledge transfer difficulties at the initiation phase whereby the difficulty in subsequent phases are predicted by factors that affect the transfer at the execution phase. Szulanski further states at each stage of the transfer, measure are developed to help in predicting the power of different factors at the stages of the knowledge transfer process. References [1]. Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kuhn, O., & Sintek, M.  (1999). Toward a technology for organizational memories.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 185-199).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.  [2]. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. [3]. Albert, S., & Bradley, K. (1997).  Managing knowledge:  Experts, agencies and organizations.  Cambridge, United Kingdom:  Cambridge University Press. [4]. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001).  Odd couple:  Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management.  Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1015. [5]. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169. [6]. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001).  Organizational knowledge management:  A contingency perspective.   Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-56. [7]. Cohen, D. (1998).  Managing knowledge in the new economy.  New York:  The Conference Board. [8]. Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1999).  Successful knowledge management projects.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 89-107).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [9]. Drucker, P. F. (1999).  Knowledge-worker productivity:  The biggest challenge.  California Management Review, 41(2), 79-94. [10]. Echeverri-Carroll, E. L. (1999).  Knowledge flows in innovation networks:  A comparative analysis of Japanese and U.S. high-technology firms.  Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 296-303. [11]. Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30. [12]. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).  Knowledge management:  An organizational capabilities perspective.  Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214. [13]. Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001).   General perspectives on knowledge management:  Fostering a research agenda.  Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-22. [14]. Hackett, B. (2000).  Beyond knowledge management:  New ways to work and learn.  New York:  The Conference Board. [15]. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988).  Organizational learning.  American Review of Sociology, 14, 319-346. [16]. Lucier, C. E., & Torilieri, J. D. (1999).  Why knowledge programs fail:  A CEO’s guide to managing learning.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.),The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 262-279).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [17]. Martinez, M. N. (1999).  The collective power of employee knowledge.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 319-325).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [18]. McCampbell, A. T., Clare, L. M., & Glitters, S. H. (1999).  Knowledge management:  The new challenge for the 21st century.  Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(3), 172-179. [19]. Myers, P. S., & Swanborg, Jr., R. W. (1999).  Packaging knowledge.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 200-203).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [20]. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1999).  The concept of ba:  Building a foundation of knowledge creation.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 37-51).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [21]. Nurmi, R.  (1999). Knowledge-intensive firms.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 168-179).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [22]. Prusak, L. (1999).  What’s up with knowledge management?  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 3-7).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.           [23]. Skyrme, D., & Amidon, D. (1999).  The knowledge agenda.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 118-125).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.  [24]. Snowden, D. (1999).  A framework for creating a sustainable knowledge management program.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 52-64).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann.  [25]. Sveiby, K. E. (1999).  Tacit knowledge.  In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 1999-2000 (pp. 18-27).  Boston:  Butterworth-Heinemann. [26]. Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarborough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999).  Knowledge management and innovation:  Networks and networking.  Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262-275. [27]. Szulanski, G. (2000). The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27 [28]. Weik, K. E., & Roberts, K.  (1993). Collective mind in organizations:  Heedful interrelating on flight decks.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 357-381. [29]. Wiig, K. M. (1997).  Knowledge management:  An introduction and perspective.  Journal of Knowledge Management. 1(1), 6-14. . Read More