Common Wealth Government Agency Knowledge Management Analysis - Coursework Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tutor :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Title : Institution : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx @ 2012 Table of contents Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3 Background..................................................................................................................... 3 Knowledge...................................................................................................................... 3 Knowledge in the case study........................................................................................... 5 Usefulness of knowledge in the organization.................................................................. 6 Actors involved in knowledge management.................................................................... 7 Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 8 Bibliography.................................................................................................................... 9 Common wealth Government Agency Knowledge Management Analysis Introduction Knowledge is the state of being aware of something (Frappaolo 2006, 34). Organizations deal in knowledge most of the time since it is an integral part of the functions of any organization. For any organization, knowledge management requires it to identify, represent, create, enable and distribute or share the knowledge in their custody. Organizations are involved in the management of knowledge all the time (Frappaolo 2006, 40). This knowledge is ultimately dispersed or shared among those who need it for the betterment of the organization. In this report, the concept of knowledge will be explained followed by an analysis of a case study. The analysis will be based on the Common wealth Government Agency case study. Back ground The case concerns a failed recruitment drive that was supposed to see 130 staff recruited to take part in a new initiative by the government. There was no clarification of the required skills and the engagement with stakeholders. The resultant effect was that managers opposed the recruitment and those who were recruited were not suitable for the government agency. Many of those applicants who were rated highly were never given their rightful positions. The positions were instead given to promoted staff members who were not ready or suitable for them. The main problem was identified as having been the sharing of knowledge since it was never done in the right manner. This made the colleagues and the managers working with the senior manager to resist the whole exercise. Knowledge Knowledge is the state of familiarity with something or someone. This may have to do with skills, descriptions, facts or information received through education or experience. It could be used in reference to the practical or theoretical understanding of any given topic. It may be implicit such as the case of expertise and practical skill or may be explicit as in theoretical understanding and could be systematic or formal (Knight and Howes 2012, 23). Managing organizational knowledge requires an in-depth understanding of what knowledge is. The structure and nature of knowledge in an organization and what differentiates it from the other knowledge types needs to be understood. Organizational knowledge is neither homogenous nor monolithic but it evolves from various places of origin and has engagements in various ways. Based on research, knowledge in an organization can be classified as tacit knowledge, cultural and explicit knowledge (Holdt 2003, 91). Knowledge has been found not just to be an artifact or object. It is also the result of people working with one another, sharing their experiences and making meaning from their work. Tacit knowledge is that kind of knowledge within an organization that members use to do their work and to bring sense out of their activities. This knowledge is obtained and mastered via long periods of experience or working on a given task. In the process the person involved starts having a feeling for and the ability to make good judgments concerning the success of the activity (Knight and Howes 2012, 30). Explicit knowledge is that knowledge which is formally expressed by use of symbols and therefore its diffusion or communication is very easy. The cultural knowledge of an organization is composed of those beliefs that the organization holds as true with regard to observation, experience, reflection on itself and the environment around it. As time goes by, an organization creates and nurtures shared beliefs concerning its core capabilities, key business, competitors, markets and other important things. These beliefs are used to make the criteria necessary for selecting alternatives and judging new ideas a well as for evaluating proposals and projects. Therefore, cultural knowledge is inclusive of the shared beliefs and assumptions used in explaining and describing what reality is. They also explain the expectations and criteria used in assigning significance and value to newly found information (Rollet, 2003, 56). Knowledge in the case study The act of the government tasking the government agency with the responsibility to implement a policy involved knowledge in itself. The agency became aware of the fact that it was supposed to carry out the mentioned policy implementation. Knowledge was therefore passed from the government to the senior manager of the organization. Through this he became aware of the needed recruitment exercise and went a head to act on the knowledge received. The transfer of information from the senior management to the rest of the management was knowledge as well. Even though they got it through the newspapers, being aware of the recruitment was knowledge. They now knew that there was something scheduled to happen in the company in the form of a recruitment exercise (Mertins, Hesisig and Vorbeck 2003, 62). The company that was contacted to carry out the recruitment was made aware of what was expected of it through the contract agreement. This was knowledge being passed to the company from the senior manager of the organization. With this information, they knew what they were supposed to do for the government agency. Knowledge also involved the awareness of the applicants about the details of the job opportunities available at the organization. For example the applicants lacked knowledge on the types of jobs on offer. They had no details because of lack of knowledge on specifics about the job descriptions. However they had knowledge of the fact that they were required to send their job applications to the company for consideration. This knowledge was acquired through the adverts posted in the newspapers (O'Dell, Elliott and Cindy, 2000, 80). Usefulness of knowledge in the organization Knowledge in the organization was useful especially in the implementation of the new recruitment policy. The knowledge was important for making the managers within the organization as well as other staff aware of the new policy to be implemented. The knowledge was useful to the entire organization and that is why the government passed information to the senior manager about the policy to be implemented. The government agency therefore needed the knowledge for it to undertake the recruitment exercise. Failure to have the knowledge, nothing would have been done. The whole organization needed to know of the new developments and the processes involved. The company that was contracted to do the recruitment also found the knowledge useful to it. It got a contract by virtue of having this knowledge. The company therefore undertook to give its services to the organization in return for payment. Knowledge about the recruitment process and the details involved was also important to the applicants (Ikujirō 2005, 245). The applicants submitted their applications without having the necessary information on what was needed for the recruitment. They were not aware of the kind of jobs they had been asked to apply for. They were also not informed about the necessary qualifications for the positions advertised in the news papers. Knowledge was necessary for the success of the recruitment exercise. Lack of information sharing led to a lot of misunderstanding which contributed a lot to the failure of the implementation of the policy. The senior manager for example, was expected to consult with the other managers, colleagues and peers over the contract agreement with the company involved (Daryl, Maybury and Thuraisingham 2002, 210). Decision making was not done in a consultative manner and therefore the other managers felt left out. Knowledge was important for everyone to understand what was being done. The unsuccessful applicants needed knowledge about the state of their applications. The contracted company was not given the authority to give information to the unsuccessful applicants concerning their applications. Knowledge about the failure or success of the applications was supposed to be passed to the applicants in good time. The usefulness of knowledge in this case cannot therefore be overemphasized (Alavi, Leidner 2001, 110).  Actors involved in knowledge management The actors involved in knowledge management in this case were the creator, owner, users and the custodian of that knowledge. In the very first case where the government called on the organization to carry out recruitment, the creator of that kind of knowledge was the government (Coakes 2003, 76). It was the one that originated with the policy to be implemented and the command to implement that policy. The government also acted as the owner of the knowledge having been the one that originated with it and only passed it to the agency. The government agency including its entire staff and other employees was the user of the knowledge. If the entire management and the colleagues of the senior manager were given the knowledge in good time, they would have used it in the right manner. However this was not done in the proper time and in the right manner. The knowledge was later passed to them later. It was also passed to the company that received the contract. The company also became a user of the knowledge since it went ahead to do the recruitment exercise. Other users of this knowledge were the applicants both successful and unsuccessful. They used the knowledge by sending their applications to the company to be considered for the advertised positions (Coakes 2003, 115). The senior manager representing the government agency was the custodian of the knowledge. He kept it to himself and only gave it out to those he believed were concerned or needed it at the particular time it was required. The agency acted as a custodian of the knowledge on behalf of the government that owned that knowledge (Awad, Awad 2004, 69). Conclusion In conclusion, the analysis of knowledge management has been accomplished through this report. The case is that of a Common wealth Government Agency that was mandated with the responsibility of implementing a new policy by the government. The agency was therefore supposed to recruit new staff members to take up key positions in the organization. This recruitment exercise was mishandled and therefore ended up unsuccessful. The analysis of knowledge management in this case has examined the knowledge that was being managed by the organization, the usefulness of this knowledge to the organization and the actors involved in knowledge management. The findings of the analysis show that the knowledge was the information about the recruitment as given to the organization by the government. This knowledge was useful to the organization, the contracted company and the applicants because they needed it in order to play their roles. The actors were the government as the creator and owner of the knowledge, the organization as the custodian and the contracted company and the applicants as the users of the knowledge. Bibliography Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E., (2001). “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues” MIS Quarterly 25(1): 107-136. Awad, E. Awad, M.(2004) Knowledge Management. Pearson Education India. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Coakes, E., 2003. Knowledge Management: Current Issues and Challenges. (Google books) Idea Group Inc. Available at: www.google.com. (Accessed 27 June 2012). Daryl, M., Maybury, T.M., and Thuraisingham, B. 2002.Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works. The MIT Press. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Frappaolo, C. 2006. Knowledge Management. John Wiley & Sons. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Holdt, P. C. 2003. Knowledge Management: Perspectives and Pitfalls. CBS Press. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Ikujirō N. (2005) Knowledge Management: Critical Perspectives on Business Management. Routledge. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Knight, T. and Howes T. 2012. Knowledge Management: A blueprint for Delivery. (Google Books) Routledge. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Mertins, K., Hesisig and Vorbeck J. 2003.Knowledge Management: Concepts and Best Practices. (Google Books)Springer. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). O'Dell, C., Elliott S., Cindy, H. 2000. Knowledge Management: A Guide to Your Journey to Best Practice. APQC. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Rollet H. 2003. Knowledge Management: Processes and Technologies. Springer. Available at: www.google.com (Accessed 27 June 2012). Read More