This paper examines three major definitions of knowledge management (KM) and evaluates how organizations can extract value from intellectual assets. It contrasts KM with Information Management, explores the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge, and analyzes the challenges of capturing and sharing tacit knowledge within organizational contexts. The paper emphasizes that KM is not primarily a technology solution but rather a human-centered process requiring cultural shifts, mentorship programs, and cross-departmental collaboration. Key recommendations include establishing channels for knowledge sharing, creating psychological safety for collaboration, and developing long-term employee relationships rather than relying solely on temporary workers.
Knowledge Management (KM) has long been one of the buzzwords of the scientific discipline of management. However, it is notoriously difficult to define—even philosophers cannot agree what constitutes knowledge, much less how to specifically deploy it in a practical fashion in the service of an organization.
One widely cited definition of KM emphasizes the facilitation of knowledge-sharing and the breaking down of artificial disciplinary and hierarchical personnel barriers. According to this approach: "Succinctly put, KM is the process through which organizations generate value from their intellectual and knowledge-based assets. Most often, generating value from such assets involves codifying what employees, partners and customers know, and sharing that information among employees, departments and even with other companies in an effort to devise best practices. It's important to note that the definition says nothing about technology; while KM is often facilitated by IT, technology by itself is not KM" (Levinson, 2007, p. 1).
A second definition, provided by Maarten Sierhuis, traces KM's origins to Information Management and emphasizes the distinction between the two. Sierhuis writes: "We are all familiar with the term Information Management. This term came about when people realized that information is a resource that can and needs to be managed to be useful in an organization. From this, the ideas of Information Analysis and Information Planning came about. Organizations are now starting to look at 'knowledge' as a resource as well. This means that we need ways for managing the knowledge in an organization. We can use techniques and methods that were developed as part of Knowledge Technology to analyze the knowledge sources in an organization. Using these techniques we can perform Knowledge Analysis and Knowledge Planning" (Sierhuis, quoted by Newman, 2002).
Both Levinson (2007) and Sierhuis (2002) sidestep what exactly constitutes knowledge, but Sierhuis' definition implies that knowledge is not simply "the facts" or bits and pieces of information. The term "knowledge" suggests an approach, a way of looking at the world grounded in history and experience. When organizations can break down disciplinary and interdepartmental barriers and allow for sharing of true knowledge, greater progress can be made to further organizational goals.
In contrast, when barriers and obstacles to knowledge transfer are created, and when individuals hoard knowledge and resist collaboration, organizations can lose their competitive edge. As Ledford and Berge (2008) note: "Altering one's business approach to accommodate fluctuating KM demands is imperative. Change strategies target organizational structures and culture to meet global needs. Unlocking the existing tacit knowledge within organizations will amplify the value placed on tacit knowledge which can provide leverage for negotiating success."
A practical example illustrates this principle: the advertising and marketing department may have a unique understanding of the typical demographic profile of users of a new computer system developed by the organization. If the target user is young, hip, and forward-thinking, this knowledge would be valuable for the IT department to possess when fine-tuning the final model and designing the user interface. The instructional manual, physical design, and added features should all reflect this understanding of the product's marketability. Similarly, the advertisers and marketers should understand the new system itself so that their campaign reflects practical aspects of what the user will encounter after purchasing the product. The IT department can benefit from understanding the psychology of the user and the perspective of a marketer, which will affect product design. In turn, a marketer can fashion a more informed campaign by understanding the "nuts and bolts" of the product.
Such conceptions of KM reflect the fact that IT can facilitate knowledge-sharing by enabling different branches of an organization to communicate more effectively. For example, a virtual team that integrates members from different branches in different areas of the world can communicate daily through email and can easily exchange files and images to support their arguments. However, the organization's human resources must know how to use IT effectively; IT is a tool, not an end in itself.
A third conception of KM emerges from the transformation of the global economy into a knowledge-based, freelance economy. As companies cut back on permanent staff, they increasingly hire contract and temporary workers. In this model, workers own the means of production—their knowledge. As Allee (2010) explains: "Workers own the means of production—their knowledge. They can sell it, trade it, or give it away and still own it."
On one hand, this mobile new knowledge economy can be tremendously empowering for workers if the organization respects their expertise. However, if organizations focus on employee knowledge alone, or explicit employee knowledge, this also gives companies the ability to buy employee knowledge as a commodity rather than invest in workers in the long term. This shift has supposedly been cost-friendly for companies but comes at a price for workers.
The problem with a purely explicit knowledge-based economy is that it does not give workers long-term security and stability. Allee (2010) observes that "Knowledge is perishable. The shelf life of expertise is limited because new technologies, products, and services continually pour into the marketplace. No one can hoard knowledge. People and companies must constantly renew, replenish, expand, and create more knowledge." This insight underscores a fundamental tension in the knowledge economy: organizations that treat knowledge only as a transactional commodity may find themselves less adaptable to change than those that invest in long-term employee development and organizational culture.
KM is often divided into two approaches or types of knowledge: explicit and tacit. At some organizations, KM is used as a "mechanism that attempts to capture explicit knowledge in a way that is seamless to the person creating that knowledge," so that employee knowledge is maximized in terms of how defined expertise is shared within the organization (Tacit KM, 2010, Three Geeks).
According to Sanchez (2004): "The explicit knowledge approach emphasizes processes for articulating knowledge held by individuals, the design of organizational approaches for creating new knowledge, and the development of systems (including information systems) to disseminate articulated knowledge within an organization." The focus is on the knowledge itself, rather than the people behind the knowledge.
Explicit knowledge-sharing has received the lion's share of attention in most KM-focused organizations. This could be because many organizations find the use of tacit knowledge to be difficult, as tacit knowledge is part of the employee, not external to the worker (Pena, 2002). One of the most perplexing aspects of KM is how to use what is called "tacit knowledge"—what might be called resting (as opposed to kinetic) knowledge—the "know-how contained in people's heads." As Levinson (2007, p. 2) explains: "The challenge inherent with tacit knowledge is figuring out how to recognize, generate, share and manage it. While IT in the form of email, groupware, instant messaging and related technologies can help facilitate the dissemination of tacit knowledge, identifying tacit knowledge in the first place is a major hurdle for most organizations."
Tacit knowledge involves moving people rather than information to transfer knowledge within an organization and managing employees rather than processes. This can yield great benefits: a very talented employee may have hidden skills that others in the organization could benefit from learning. However, the challenge remains: how can an organization identify which new recruit has the greatest value to add?
One effective way to tease out tacit knowledge from newer employees is through mentorship. By enabling workers to shadow older employees, greater dialogue between generations is created. According to Levinson (2007, p. 2), "less experienced staff observe more experienced staff in their activities to learn how their more experienced counterparts approach their work," while younger members can bring generational insights to older workers about changing attitudes and technology. The "protégé" can engage with as well as learn from the "expert" (Levinson, 2007, p. 2).
Team-based activities are often helpful, particularly when workers from different disciplines can learn from one another. Furthermore, workers may discover hidden talents and interests within themselves that they never knew they possessed until they began working with individuals who have a different approach and basis of knowledge.
The use of tacit knowledge reflects a growing shift to view knowledge as internal rather than external. It also improves the organization's view of the worker, given that for tacit knowledge to be shared, workers must be mentored and nurtured for a long time within the organization. The worker's personal orientation, worldview, and skills that must be built upon are all part of his or her knowledge. The ultimate aim is to transform tacit knowledge into the fungible currency of explicit knowledge. However, tacit knowledge-driven strategies recognize the need for greater organizational efforts to tease out hidden assets, promote organizational sharing and collaboration, and create effective teams (Klein, 2008).
"Obstacles and best practices for effective KM"
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.