Lack of Information - Coursework Example

IT, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Month Day, Year Introduction Knowledge management is a diverse concept that essentially covers the systematic gathering and management of information and knowledge within all levels of organizations (McAdam & Renee, 2000; Laudon & Laudon, 2002; Awad & Ghaziri, 2004; Liew 2007). Despite this general conception, the specifics of information and knowledge management tend to vary between entities, such as organizations. There are equally certain distinctions between the private and public sectors; their perceptions, actual initiatives and effectiveness of information and knowledge management. These differences are attributable to key differences, including what is valued most: service, profits, etc (Denhardt & Grubbs 2003). Generally, the public sector has lagged behind in terms of IT, information and knowledge management as “administrative, executive and judicial bodies continue to evolve into an electronic work environment pushed by paperback” (Arora 2011, p.166). As a case example, a report by the House of Common’s Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) recognizes the limitations of the government’s development and implementation of IT systems, particularly the fact that there is a general “lack of IT skills in government and over-reliance on contracting out [to the private sector]” (p.3). Another challenge entails the minimal or insufficient information that is allocated to information or knowledge systems and technology. The private sector, on the other hand, has made major leapfrogs in this regard, exhibiting even more effective information and knowledge management. According to Denhardt and Grubbs (2003), the private sector organizations, unlike the public sector, operate differently. The fact that they pursue profits is motivating enough. On the other hand, the public sector does not require profits to stay running. Moreover, the organizational structure- another key factor of knowledge management- of private sector organizations, unlike the general bureaucracy of the public sector organizations, further boost information and knowledge management. This paper compares information and knowledge management between the private and the public sectors, and what factors may contribute to these differences, including: ambiguity of purpose; pluralistic decision-making; visibility; susceptibility to political environments, among others. The end-goal is to cite what the public sector can learn from the private sector in knowledge management. Knowledge Management: Public versus Private Sector The main knowledge management differences between the public and private sectors are mainly evident in aspects of scope and purpose. However, the aspect of organizational structure is also very important. a) Scope Because the functions of government impact the private sector, it is expected that the scope knowledge management in government organizations would be much broader than that of the private sector. Besides, private sector organizations mainly focus on one industry and deal with one or just a few more lines of products and/or services. In this respect, private sector organizations have strategically predetermined (by marketing orientations) customer bases. As a result, this makes it relatively easier for private sector organizations not only choose but also control their customers. In turn, this “makes it easier for them to manage knowledge acquired from their customers” (Denhardt & Grubbs 2003, p.6). On the other hand, government organizations deal with almost every single aspect of social lives. In the end, the government does not target just one group of customers. Rather, every single citizen and even non-citizens in the country is a customer. Considering the diversity of such a group (culturally, ethnically, preference-wise, etc), it becomes understandable how hard it would be to leverage information gotten from them into a single unit of force that serves all. As the regulator of market means for every operation of business in the private sector, government must always be able to supervise and execute corresponding operations. Moreover, the public sector must also supply unique public products and services that the private may not be willing or able to provide. In the end, apart from some organizational knowledge management initiatives aimed at improving internal efficiency and effectiveness, government organizations generally deal with a broader overall knowledge base that the private ones (Denhardt & Grubbs 2003). b) Purpose ‘Purpose’ is another area where knowledge management differences between the public and private sector are evident. Most importantly, unlike the private sector organizations, government organizations focus on a lot more than just improving effectiveness and efficiency. Besides, knowledge is for public good. Therefore, government organizations must also look to create an overall enabling environment that will enhance the ability of not just government organizations but also other key actors to benefit and contribute positively to the development of a network for knowledge management. The government is one of the biggest producers and consumers of information and knowledge. Moreover, it is a key policymaking body, and has interest in promoting knowledge for human development (Roland & Maria 2003). For these reasons, the government can be a central knowledge broker, something the private sector may be not be ready to do. There are two issues cited in this discussion. The discussion on scope seems to justify the government’s failure in IT and knowledge management, placing the blame on the scope of customer base and needs they have to deal with. However, the discussion on ‘purpose’ makes it clear that the government should be in a better position for IT and knowledge management. Moreover, because of the wider scope of customer base and, therefore, areas for the need of information and knowledge management, including policymaking, among others, the government should be able take this issues more seriously than it has so far done. Moreover, the issue of scope only seems like an excuse, considering that concept of division of labor and the fact that public organizations focus on specific issues. For example, as PASC (2011) notes: “Having access to up-to-date and accurate information about government IT is essential if the Government is to reform its IT successfully” (p.10). Unfortunately, as the report notes, this is a big problem. The Public Administration Select Committee itself had a problem finding the data necessary to make an accurate assessment of the government IT systems. Even in response to questionnaires that the committee sent out to various government departments (and which were willing to release such information), the data the committee requested did not exist. Without such information, it is hard to know what and how much needs to change, as well as determine the basis for assessment and evaluation. In other words, without this information, any such efforts at change are without direction, which is the beginning of failure in the effort(s) toward information and knowledge management. c) Organizational Structure, and Availability of and Access to Information To solve the problem of information and knowledge management in the public sector, it is important to identify the source of the problem (in comparison to the private sector). Information is the source of knowledge. In other words, without information, there is no knowledge to manage to start with. Therefore, the availability of information is central to knowledge management. On information availability, the question is not whether there is information (for that is given), but whether the available information can be accessed. In other words, the issue here is the harvest of information. To harvest information effectively, it is necessary to: first, know where to get the information (i.e. the source of information); and second, know how to get the information (i.e. the tools for getting the information, as well as creating an environment that makes harvesting information possible) (Liew 2007). Human resource (i.e. stakeholders) has been recognized as the main and most important source of information (Lawler 2008; Tabara & Chabay, 2013). According to Aziri et al. (2013), the most important aspect of knowledge management is the ability of the organization to selectively capture, archive, and access the best practices of work-related knowledge and decision making from employees and managers, as well as other stakeholders, for both individual and group behaviors” (p.1040). Besides, knowledge, essentially, lives in the mind (Aziri et al. 2013). In other words, the best answer lies in how the organization leverages the human capital for information access and knowledge management. A knowledge-based or learning organization facilitates the dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Decision-making in such an organization involves various people; not just the top management, but also workers at all levels. Organizational structure is the key influence on the dissemination and utilization of information and knowledge organization-wide (Laudon & Laudon; Zack 2003). On this (organizational structure), the public and private sector organizations differ, and plays a key role in the effectiveness of their knowledge management (McAdam & Reid 2000). There was a time when both the public and private sector organizations used the same structure. This was the hierarchical structure, which promoted the premise of the centralization of key decisions with the top management, who then passed it down to the lower ranks. The lower ranks, on their part were to follow these directives without question. However, over the last few decades, with more research on aspects of employee satisfaction, the private sector has increasingly adopted flexible structures that allow a more horizontal movement. Unlike the hierarchical (vertical) arrangement, the horizontal structure is based on the premise that every employee, regardless of level, is important and can make an important individual contribution for the organization. The structure is, therefore, meant to make the most of the individual; that through free interaction, information passes fast and individual can learn from one another. Most importantly, the fact that the top management are not at the ‘top’ but on the ‘ground’ with everyone else, information flow between the various organizational levels is improved and be acted upon fast. Ultimately, “the identification of information flows within the organization is an effective method to design structure of an information-based organization” (Mahapatro 2010, p.37). On the other hand, public sector organizations have stuck with the bureaucracy of the hierarchical structure. In the public sector, the top management is largely separated from the lower ranks, leading to a major information gap. There are also inter-agency and inter-departmental politics that are hampering the sharing of information. The same problem may be what is affecting the UK government in its IT and knowledge management efforts. There is enough information, but the various departments do not cooperate to share and learn from one another. The structure is just terrible for information harvest. Recommendations Indeed, there is a lot that public sector organizations (UK government in this case) can learn from the private sector in terms of perceptions and attitudes toward knowledge and knowledge management. For example: a) Distinguish between e-government and knowledge management, and leverage the former (e-government) for the latter (knowledge management). As noted above, many public organizations equate the many e-government systems as knowledge management. But these two are not the same. However, e-government is an important platform for information dissemination and sharing. In other words, -e-government can facilitate knowledge management. Making this distinction is important for public organizations in their knowledge management efforts. b) Determine the key sources of information and knowledge, and the right means and tools for harvesting knowledge. Most importantly, public organizations should find the right strategies to leverage human resource for information access and knowledge management. This may also involve the development of new research and development (R&D) department to enable decision makers to find out reliable and relevant information on IT and knowledge management. c) In relation to the point above, the UK government departments should adopt the appropriate. They should now move from the traditional bureaucratic and inflexible hierarchical and adopt structures that can optimize the ability to utilize human capital. At the moment, the public sector is not utilizing its key source of information appropriately. Conclusion Information and knowledge are important for organizations (both public and private) in the contemporary world. While IT is important in this regard, without proper knowledge management, the IT may just be useless. For example, without realizing that e-government tools can enhance access to information and, therefore, utilizing them to enhance the availability and dissemination of information, such tools may not realize their full potential. Indeed, there is reason for the public sector to learn from the private sector. However, as already pointed out, the public and private sectors are different in a number of ways (including scope and purpose). Therefore, the public sector cannot just copy directly from the private sector. While it can learn from what has worked for the private sector, it may be necessary to tweak these in a way that serves the unique characters of government organizations. Bibliography Arora, E 2011, ‘Knowledge management in public sector’, International Refereed Research Journal, vol.2, no.1, pp.165-171 Awad, EM & Ghaziri, HM 2004, Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Aziri, B, Veseli, N & Ibraimi, S 2013, Human resources and knowledge management. Active Citizenship by Knowledge Management & Innovation: Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference, June 19-21, Zadar (Croatia) Denhardt, RB & Grubbs, JW 2003, Public administration: an action orientation, 4th Edition. Thomson Wadsworth House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) 2011, Government and IT- “a recipe for rip-offs”: time for a new approach. Twelfth Report of Session 2010-12 Laudon, K., & Laudon, JP 2002, Management information systems: managing the digital firm (7th Ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal Lawler III, EE 2008, Make human capital a source of competitive advantage. Center for Effective Organization (CEO) Publication, G 08-15 (551) Liew, A 2007, “Understanding data, information, knowledge and their inter-relationship”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, vol.8, no.2 Mahapatro, B 2010, Human Resource Management, New Age: New Delhi McAdam, R & Reid, R 2000, “A comparison of public and private sector perceptions and use of knowledge management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(6), 317-329 Roland, T & Maria, W 2003, Knowledge management for government: enhancing the quality of public service. Expanding Public Space for the Development of the Knowledge Society: Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Knowledge Systems for Development 4-5 September Tabara, JD & Chabay, I 2013, “Coupling human information and knowledge systems with social-ecological systems change: reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability”, Environmental Science and Policy, vol.28, pp.71-81 Zack, MH 2003, “Rethinking the knowledge-based organization,” MITSloan Management Review, July 15 Read More