Emperor Approach and Choo Sense-Making Model - Example

Emperor: A Method for Collaborative Experience Management Student’s Name Institution of Learning Abstract Management mainly takes care of the perilous aspects of organizational existence issues, and the know-how in the context of a progressively sporadic environment transformation. There are numerous knowledge management models that vary in terms of perspectives. These ranges from the basic suppositions of the implicit and explicit intellectual transfer towards a notion that is increasingly compact and complex and where knowledge is a rational assets, with a systematic in viewpoint. It is also a crucial capital that needs requires to be administered in an efficient way to facilitate the success of an organization. The main aim of this paper is to have a critical review on the numerous knowledge management models by focusing mainly on EMPEROR approach and Choo sense making model. Introduction There is an escalating interest in Knowledge management among the practitioners in the organizations and researchers. It is growing into a core competence that many organizations should develop for them to be able to succeed in the future dynamic world economy (Jennex, 2007, pg. 37-43). The significance of knowledge leverage inside organizations as a way of increasing efficiency is currently widely acknowledged between large and small business ventures and even in academic institutions. Knowledge resources are likely to go to waste unless the management openly supports and accepts efforts to offer support to sort, gather, and share knowledge (Rao, 2005, pg. 56). Knowledge management initiatives are being launched inside organizations because it is believed that their well-intended effort will have better natural results on knowledge assets exploitation for businesses profits. Managers in organizations are always on constant search for better ways to assist in performance improvement by gaining a new understanding of the underlying, however, complex mechanisms in knowledge management to oversee organizations success. Through acknowledgement knowledge management has been identified to be an aspect that is multidimensional that brings most organization aspects on board (Bellaver, & Lusa, 2002, pg. 21- 29). There is a large number of organization leaders who appreciates the strategic value of knowledge and increased need to manage these assets (Bahra, 2001, pg. 23). KM experts in many business can assert that managing KM is complex task in today’s business. However, it is important because it has and is turning out to be a potential competitive advantages that can be attained. Therefore, successful and competitive organizations should create and sustain an intellectual capital portfolio that is well balanced. Integrating the goals of intellectual capital management and effectual knowledge procedures should be priorities among managers. Knowledge management has been a key center of focus among the employers and employees (Tiwana, 2000, pg.48). Moreover, it has also attracted an immense academia attention. The Knowledge management interests have also been seen in the information technology, economics, sociology, psychology among others. Having in mind the complexity nature of knowledge management, it is the right moment to try and get a picture of the latest theories underlying knowledge management (Hawryszkiewycz, 2010, pg.102). This paper will censoriously review the implementation of EMPEROR approach system in DAU and then compare it with the Choo sense making Knowledge management model. Literature review Prior research on knowledge management indicates that there are a number of knowledge management definitions. For example, Leidner and Alavi (1999) refer to knowledge management as a specific and systemic procedure that enables an organizational to acquire, establish, and communicate both explicit and tacit employees intellectual such that other workers in an organization are able to draw sense in order to be more effectual and better performers in their work duties. Another definitions is from O’Dell, where it asserted that knowledge management is a conscious policy that enables acquisition of the right knowledge that assists the right people at the right time to transfer and exploit data in a move that strives to increase the organization performance (Dalkir, 2013 pg. 17). Additionally, Malhotra (2000 & 2001) opinion is that, knowledge management takes care of the precarious organizational aspects such as endurance, adaption, and know-how in the process of increasing irregular environmental change. The overall goal of knowledge management is to generate value, leverage, and refine the competences, and knowledge assets of an organization in order to attain the set organizational targets and goals. The implementation of knowledge management involves numerous dimensions such as knowledge management policy which must be depend on corporate strategy (Choo, 1998, pg 16). Organization culture which has an influence on how people interact within an organization. Another dimension is organization procedures, leadership and management, politics and technology. It is also crucial to take note of the fact that knowledge management is not roughly managing knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Knowledge Management Models Choo KM The model is good based on the elements that are used in sense making for a decision inference that is fully optimized. The main focus area of this model is on how informational elements are chosen and introduced to an organization’s actions (Choo, 1998, pg 21-27). The results of these actions are on the absorption and concentration of information that comes from the exterior environment in every cycle, as shown in the figure below. The model describes four procedures that include: changing the environment, that is its exterior to the organization due to its possibility to cause information disruption between the participants (Malhotra, 2000, pg. 87). Adaption is another process, and then selection and changing which takes place when people attempts to interpret the observed aspects. The changing and selection process defines the creation of organization memory which comprises of experiences finalized with success. The memory can be used later in future to generate novel interpretations with an aim of unifying them into a coherent organizational vision. In this Choo sense making model, knowledge generation can be seen as a transformation of individual experiences into knowledge through sharing and dialogue (Boughzala, & Dudezert, 2012, pg. 35). The model elements can also be traced in crucial theories such as chaos, economic behavior, and game theories. The human mind capacity to formulate complex issues is quite minute when compared to the problem dimensions, of which problem solutions are important for a rational behavior. As a result, those individuals who comes across purposes that are ambiguous in combining actions, strives to attain those fuzzy methods which consumes medium amount of time by applying resources which they can be able to control (Jennex, 2012, pg 60-72). In most case when a person’s mind is confronted with complex world nature issues, it builds a mental model that is simple and acts according to it. In this model there is a study element which is a key procedure in regard to knowledge management, and with extension to decision areas, which are not often found in many knowledge management models (Montano, 2005, pg 10). Knowledge management system(KMS) The aspects of knowledge management system probably have been the most debated and discussed topic in the knowledge management area. Although the KMS do not form the most important part of knowledge management it is still a subject that draws most interest (Mayer, & Armstrong Laboratory, 1993,pg 15). Knowledge management system can be regarded as any kind of IT system that has a capacity to store, retrieve knowledge, locate sources of knowledge, improve collaboration, use and capture knowledge, mine repositories for hidden knowledge, or in some other way enhance the Knowledge management process Corby, et al 2000, pg 56). James Robertson (2007) argues that organizations should not even think in terms of knowledge management systems. He asserts that KM, although enhancement of knowledge management is through technology it is not a technology discipline itself, thus, perceiving it from a knowledge management systems perspective leads to expectations of "silver bullet" solutions (Maier, 2007,pg 19). However, the focus must be determining the IT system functionality that are needed for the particular activities and initiatives within the organization (Gottschalk, 2005, pg. 11). Critical Discussion The knowledge management issue at DAU is undertaken through the EMPEROR approach. This system collects practice applications and experience reports that are pooled by specialists. The task of handling, summarizing and interpreting the experience is undertaken by professionals all over the globe. The experts are taped in line with the level of experience they have and work in collaboration and in a constructive manner (Liebowitz, 2012, pg. 100). In order to invent a suitable practice, a system operator is supposed to feed information regarding his or her present context, for instance, a team application sphere, and anticipated product of an application practice, for instance, low cost and better quality. The aim of EMPEROR system approach is to permit dispersed domain professionals in DAU to collaborate on knowledge creation. That is building a decision support that is evidence based for practice selection. The EMPEROR has a number of processes which are defined to enable the (CM) offer an overall coordination while SMEs provides a particular domain expertise (Liebowitz, 2012, pg. 100- 104). The content is filtered by the CM before it is passed to SMEs. It also has an ultimate decision on the rejected tardy content which eventually elicits vetting, immediate, as well as, maintenance procedures. EMPEROR system approach was established in DAU through a clearing house for best practices. The implementation of BpCh was done through a SharePoint which is a web based interface that facilitated both CMs and SMEs coordination. Outcomes of implementation EMPEROR implementation in DAU Best Practice Clearing House was a clear indication of feasibility approach towards collaborative decision making .The approach also helps in gaining experience on aspects to take into consideration while implementing such a system, for instance, dealing with the inadequate evidence (Liebowitz, 2012, pg. 104). This implies that although dealing with perfect content is anticipated dealing with less of it is also necessary in most cases. In case the approach is dealing with novel practices it isn’t easy to realize increased quality evidence that makes erratic content improve than no content. SMEs and CMs are important interface in EMPEROR such that conducting training is important in its implementation. It improves on their ability to handle content and see a bigger picture regarding the project and their significance role in it. There are various formats in the system that makes it more attractive, for example, narrative, written among others (Liebowitz, 2012, pg. 105). These formats assists in getting great lively and wide assortment content. Instantiating general concepts within the system to the organization specifics is another crucial aspect, for instance, potential content structure. EMPEROR approach is not restricted only to a precise tool following the fact that distributed knowledge management cannot be done without back up tools. The CM interface has an explicit role of overseeing content routing and making sure that there is efficiency in the process. This is done by ensuring that content is assigning is to the SME interface that handles it well and the best suited to handle it (Liebowitz, 2012, pg. 105). The key point to note with this implementation is that the EMPEROR approach in BPCh is a feasibility of the method. In addition, the approach yielded extensive perceptions on the set up and run of collaboration experience systems. Comparison of EMPEROR method with Choo KM Model The Choo sense making model is crucial in the introduction of the sense making concept. The model asserts that knowing organizations are those that have a strategic use of information in the context of sense making, decision making, and knowledge creation (Zeleny, 2005). That is how individuals make sense out of the available knowledge in the organization. This makes it clear that without individual understanding an organization will result into poor decisions. Therefore, sense making boost efforts are important to enhance organizational performance. These efforts can be undertaken through the development of individual’s knowledge, talents and skills. In addition, strategic reflections should be undertaken regarding the organization’s mission, vision, values and culture. The EMPEROR approach has clear procedural templates and terminology for constant capture and maturing evidence that can be able to support a distributed community efficiently. This approach makes it practical to get outside professional support in case the expertise required is not readily available in the organization (Liebowitz, 2012, pg. 105-106). The major operational area of the EMPEROR method is to allow dispersed domain professionals to collaborate in knowledge creation. Conclusion There is a wide variety of standpoints surrounding the issue of knowledge management and which have been seen from the definite point of view in which knowledge is classified into distinct components as outlined in Choo sense making model to the increasingly intricate and convoluted knowledge viewpoints which is an orientation that is systematically and informally constructed. Although the models in knowledge management have developed over time they offer a way of translating and guiding managerial activates in the efforts put by an organization in knowledge management. However, these models have their own unique way of framing the main knowledge management performances. As a result, people are enabled to produce a vibrant system that helps in the reinforcement of the organization key competences. The procedures that the knowledge management procedures that are described in KM models acts as the action steps an organization exploits with a key aim of identifying it needs and the manner in which it familiarizes collects, and shares that information within the organization. The KM models can be applied in the process of fostering organization knowledge development as well as enhance individual organization impacts across the organization. All this can be managed through the knowledge management process. References Bahra, N. (2001). Competitive knowledge management. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. Bellaver, R. F., & Lusa, J. M. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and technology. Boston: Artech House. Boughzala, I., & Dudezert, A. (2012). Knowledge management 2.0: Organizational models and enterprise strategies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford University Press. Dalkir, K. (2013). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Dieng, R., & Corby, O. (2000). Knowledge engineering and knowledge management: Methods, models, and tools : 12th international conference, EKAW 2000, Juan-les-Pins, France, October 2-6, 2000 : proceedings. New York: Springer Gottschalk, P. (2005). Strategic knowledge management technology. Hershey PA: Idea Group Pub. Hawryszkiewycz, I. T. (2010). Knowledge management: Organizing knowledge based enterprises. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England: Palgrave Macmillan. Jennex, M. E. (2007). Knowledge management in modern organizations. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub. Jennex, M. E. (2012). Conceptual models and outcomes of advancing knowledge management: New technologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Liebowitz, J. (2012). Knowledge Management Handbook: Collaboration and Social Networking, Second Edition. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge management systems: Information and communication technologies for knowledge management. Berlin: Springer. Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management and virtual organizations. Hershey, USA: Idea Group Pub. Mayer, R. J., & Armstrong Laboratory (U.S.). (1993). Design Knowledge Management System (DKMS) technology impact report. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Armstrong Laboratory, Air Force Materiel Command. Montano, B. (2005). Innovations of knowledge management. Hershey, PA: IRM Press. Rao, M. (2005). Knowledge management tools and techniques: Practitioners and experts evaluate KM solutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management toolkit: Practical techniques for building a knowledge management system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR. Zeleny, M. (2005). Human systems management: Integrating knowledge, management and systems. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Pub. Read More