KM Instruments and Strategies - Example

Managing Knowledge in Organizations By: Professor: Class: University: City: State: Date of submission: Managing Knowledge in Organizations KM Instruments and Strategies KM instruments are technologies used in enhancing and enabling the generation, codification, and transfer of knowledge. Nonetheless, such definition presents a narrow definition of organizational activities in managing knowledge. Partly based on the concepts of exploitation and exploration, the typology presented by Hansel et al., (1999) on the various strategies for knowledge has been consistently used as a reference. Their categorization of research seemed to distinguish between codification and personalization of knowledge. According to the researchers, the codification methodology involves codifying the knowledge through the individuals-to-document approach, which includes extraction of knowledge from the developer, making it independent of that individual, and reusing it for different functions. Most businesses that use codification strategy invest much in information technology (Hacker, 2017, 20). Codification strategy allows several people to search for and be in a position of retrieving codified knowledge without contacting the parson that initially developed it considering that knowledge is stored in the documents, databases, and various electronic repositories. Consequently, codification strategy opens up the likelihood of attaining the scale in reusing knowledge, hence the growth of the organization. Personalization strategy, on the other hand, differs from codification method considering that it focuses on the conversation between the persons but not the knowledge objects within the databases and repositories. There is a transfer of knowledge through brainstorming and one-on-one conversations. Therefore, it involves person-to-person approach in which there is sharing of knowledge through telephones, email, and video conference but not face-to-face. As a result, it assists in building a network of people. In their research, Hansel et al., (1999) made a distinction between codification and personalization strategies and noted the similarity with exploration and exploitative typology. In both classifications, there is corresponding, that is, codification relates to exploitation while personalization involves exploitation of knowledge. There are several research undertaken of dissimilar KM tactical intentions. However, there are mainly two options: human and systems orientation (Zanjani & Mehregan, 2009, 573). The system strategy emphasizes on the codified knowledge management process, codifying, and storing the knowledge through IT. There are attempts for formal sharing of knowledge. On the other hand, human orientation seems to emphasize on the dialogue using the social networks and individual-to-individual contacts while focusing on the acquisition of knowledge through personnel with skills and experience (Venkitachalam, Scheepers & Gibbs, 2003). Moreover, there are attempts to share the knowledge formally. Most decision support technologies seem to fit within codification orientation since they have no intention of connecting people; however, they resolve problems through codification of the knowledge available to the decision makers. Other factor that characterizes codification strategy is the use of groupware tools, knowledge maps, and articles (Yonglei & Xinghua, 2013, 505). The groupware instruments make interactions possible. Thus they are personalization-oriented practices. Furthermore, investing in the spontaneous initiatives involving knowledge transfer, mentoring activities, and teams that aim to build people network and improve the sharing of knowledge in a face-to-face approach, therefore management of knowledge through personalization strategy. Importance of codification and personalization strategies The major benefits of codifications and personalization strategies are outlined in the research undertaken by Hansen and Haas (2000). According to the researchers, sharing the codified knowledge seem to improve the level of efficiency while sharing the personalized knowledge enhances the quality of the tasks and signaling of competence level to the clients. Nonetheless, the study failed to explore all the benefits these strategies. Codification seems to access and spread the knowledge quicker and over a wider scope, since it depends on neither the agenda of people nor the motivations of the experts to share the knowledge and expertise (Clegg & Ray, 2003, 27). Globally, there has been increased use of technology in businesses to improve efficiency. Besides, continuous application of IT in cataloguing knowledge has allowed the new users to enjoy a wide pool of knowledge based on the search patterns constructed based on the behavior of other people. Consequently, it is vital to note that the advantages enjoyed in codification are the weaknesses in personalization (Nadizadeh, Zadeh & Sahraeian, 2011, 672). However, the personalization strategy seems to make the process of knowledge cataloging easier since it only require identification of the expert. In addition, knowledge is highly flexible and adapts better to the requirements of the users. Since new knowledge can be generated using interactions, then personalization seem to be superior to codification (Ajith Kumar & Ganesh, 2011, 122). Generally, specialization is important whenever it is impossible to predetermine the needs of knowledge seekers or while making the knowledge explicit is difficult; therefore, it keeps the organizational knowledge tactic for prevention of knowledge flow to the competitors. Strategic Alignment of Business and Knowledge Several studies have been undertaken on the knowledge management. There are also agreements on the importance of business strategy. In their study, Hansel et al., (1999) found that the KM strategy of the business needs to be a reflection of its competitive strategy. Other researchers assert that to compete successfully on knowledge, there is need to align the methodology to what the business understands or develop the knowledge and capacities required for supporting the needed strategy. Considering the many typology used in classification of KM strategies, there are various categories of business strategies in the literature (Currie & Kerrin, 2003, 1032). Nonetheless, Porter’s generic strategies has been able to receive the highest attention as distinguishes between focus, differentiation, and overall cost leadership. Integration of cost leadership and quality products and services emphasize on low cost relative to that of competitors. Moreover, in cost leadership, speed and efficiency are the major factors. Based on personalization vs. codification typology, every the knowledge strategy is suitable depending on the manner in which the business creates the value for the customers, ways in which the value supports the economic model, and organizational management of people (Cerchione & Esposito, 2017, 1559). In KM strategy, codification fits better for businesses that create standardized products or with the business strategies that are based on the mature products with employees relying on the explicit knowledge to undertake their responsibilities (Schultze & Stabell, 2004, 560). Businesses that aim to achieve differentiation business strategy need to manage their knowledge using personalization. KM Strategies and HRM Human resource management (HRM) play vital role in developing employees according to organizational strategy which also include selection and hiring, training and development of employees, evaluation of reward performance, rewarding the employees, and the creation of learning culture. According to Hansen et al., (1999), KM and HRM strategies are two methods of managing knowledge: codification and personalization. Codification strategy involves codification of knowledge and associated storage databases which are accessible and readily available. Such organizations seem to invest greatly on ICT for various projects including data mining, knowledge mapping, intra-net, and data warehousing. These practices increase effectiveness and growth (Alvesson & Karreman, D. (2001, 1011). According to the researchers, application of knowledge saves work, reduces the cost of communication, and allows the business to diversify the projects. Therefore, it is closely related to exploitative learning that aim to refine the existing organizational capacities, technologies, and force using standardization and routinization methods. Besides, codification strategy saves time and averse the risks. On the other hand, the personalization strategy involves personal development of knowledge, which is shared across people using direct person-to-person contacts. The practices to be used include dialogues, communities of practice, and learning histories for facilitation of knowledge sharing which in most cases are based on the economics of the experts (Edvardsson, 2014). These practices are used mainly in problem solving when there is need for rich and tactic personal knowledge such strategic consultation. There is a close relationship between personalization and explorative learning. Explorative learning involves complex search, taking the risks, innovation, basic research, and relaxed controls while stressing on the creation of new capabilities, flexibility, and investment in learning (Cross et al., 2006, 55). Therefore, codification and personalization strategies are important in framing the management practices of the business. Continuous professional development is important for both professional and knowledge employees. To remain focused and forefront of their professional disciples, the employees need to be aware of the developments within their professions and participate in various activities offering opportunities in furthering their professional development. In their study, Hansen et al., (1999) disputed that codification and personalization strategies need businesses to focus on hiring various types of people and train them to meet the required specifications. Most codification businesses often focus on hiring the undergraduates and training them with the aim of making them implementers with the ability to developing and implementing the change programmes and information systems (Gammelgård & Ritter, 2004). However, personalization firms on the other hand hire the MBA graduates to be their investors. These employees apply analytical and creative skills in resolving various unique business problems. Upon employment, the employee receive the most important training through interacting and working with experienced personnel. Research indicate that KM strategies have great impact on the employee training process. Therefore, the factors that dominate codification paradigm are acquisition of knowledge, storage, manipulation, and storage while personalization paradigm focuses on learning, sharing and dissemination of knowledge, and the team based structures (Noruzy et al., 2011, 495). Figure 1: Knowledge Management Strategies KM Strategies and Information Technology In reference to information technology, codification means that organizational knowledge management depends mainly on the repositories of the explicated information. Research indicate that the retrieval of information is controlled with the organizational memory being largely dependent on the transformations and the structure used. Personalization strategy, on the other hand, depends on a person-to-person contact with the aim of allowing sharing the experiences and knowledge directly between the members of the organization. In addition, personalization seems to facilitate the controlled approach to the retrieval of information through allowing the workers to “collectively arrive at the deeper insights by going back and forth on problems they need to solve.” (Hansen et al.,1999 p. 108). The memory of the organization on the individuals and information technology are used mainly in locating the knowledgeable people and enabling direct communication. An effective knowledge management strategy is the major concern of most knowledge-intensive businesses. Within information technology, determination of effective information structure to support various organizational knowledge strategies have been able to emerge. Such concerns seem be pressing for knowledge intensive businesses including the consultation firms (Schmaltz et al., 2012). For such businesses, knowledge is the critical asset; hence, acquiring the knowledge strategy right is important to their competitive edge. Consequently, it is important to have an effective and appropriate information infrastructure for supporting the chosen knowledge strategy. The researchers developed Hansel et al. model using analyzing of consulting business and approaches to knowledge management. This model differentiates between codification and personalization. Businesses use IT to support their storage of knowledge and making it retrievable by the employees across the organization. Within the personalization strategy, IT is critical in expanding the interpersonal network and improving the capacity of connecting with each other. Organization could incur opportunity cost while allowing either codification or personalization knowledge strategy. KM Strategies and Development and Mobilization of Strategic Assets In the previous decades, the academics and practitioners highlighted the significance of knowledge. Currently, knowledge is considered the fundamental basis of basis of competition especially tactic knowledge which is unique, non-substitutable, imperfectly mobile, and imperfectly imitable. These features can be organization source of advantage. Nonetheless, the mere act used to process knowledge often to guarantee the required competitive advantage which call for the management practices (Geisler, 2006, 292). In the future, businesses are likely to create new knowledge and ensure effective and efficient application for competitive advantage. Studies view knowledge management (KM) as an explicit and systematic management of important knowledge and closely relate to the creation, organization, utilization, and utilization process. Various principles of KM have been studied and implemented in several organizational discipline and profession. With such diversity, there has been the advancement of the field though incorporation of the ideas and terminologies remain limited. In such situation, there are challenges in establishing KM as a separate disciple. Based on a practical perspective, businesses are noticing the significance of managing knowledge with the aim of remaining competitive and grow. Currently, knowledge has become an important factor for the businesses that aim to achieve their competitive advantage. Successful businesses consider knowledge as their intangible assets, which are unlike the physical assets. They using knowledge frequently, it is prone to increment. Globally, business environments are becoming highly competitive with employers focusing on the application of technology to increase efficiency and effectiveness of business operations (Venkitachalam & Bosua, 2014, 342). Such activities lead to retrenchment of some employees while knowledgeable and experienced employees remain. This signifies the importance of knowledge in asset creation. Both codification and personalization strategies aim at effectiveness and low cost and consequently creating the methodologies required to innovate new capabilities. Innovative practices aim to build organizational asset base while placing greater weight on the creation of knowledge on the human interaction to the transfer of tactic knowledge (Verona, Prandelli & Sawhney, 2006, 772). In addition, it involves creation of knowledge from knowledge, which means increasing innovation and workplace practices. References Ajith Kumar, J., & Ganesh, L. (2011). Balancing knowledge strategy: codification and personalization during product development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 118-135. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001). Odd Couple: Making Sense of the Curious Concept of Knowledge Management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018. Cerchione, R., & Esposito, E. (2017). Using knowledge management systems: A taxonomy of SME strategies. International Journal of Information Management, 37(1), 1551-1562. Clegg, S., & Ray, T. (2003). Power, Rules of the Game and the Limits to Knowledge Management: Lessons from Japan and Anglo-Saxon Alarms. Prometheus, 21(1), 23-40. Cross, R., Laseter, T., Parker, A., & Velasquez, G. (2006). Using Social Network Analysis to Improve Communities of Practice. California Management Review, 49(1), 32-60. Currie, G., & Kerrin, M. (2003). Human resource management and knowledge management: enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 1027-1045. Edvardsson, I. R. (2014). Knowledge Management and HRM strategies. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/1093/3257/1/knowledgemanagement.pdf Gammelgård, J., & Ritter, T. (2004). The Knowledge Retrieval Matrix: Codification and Personification as Separate Strategies. København. Geisler, E. (2006). A taxonomy and proposed codification of knowledge and knowledge systems in organizations. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(4), 285-296. Hacker, J. (2017). Enterprise Social Networks: Platforms for Enabling and Understanding Knowledge Work? Social Knowledge Management in Action, 5(3), 17-37. Hansen, T, Nohria, N, & Tierney, T. (1999). 'What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review, March-April: 106-116. Nadizadeh, A., Zadeh, A. S., & Sahraeian, R. (2011). Determination of the Knowledge Management Strategy (A Case: Iran Alloy Steel Company). International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 3(6), 689-695. Noruzy, A., Hayat, A. A., Rezazadeh, A., Najafi, S., & Shirkouhi, L. H. (2011). Factors influencing the productivity of knowledge workers: a case study from an Iranian Oil Company. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 8(4), 459. Robert Schmaltz, Svenja Hagenhoff, & Christian Kaspar. (2012). Information Technology Support For Knowledge Management In Cooperations. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/l-1_schmaltz.pdf Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing What You Don't Know? Discourses and Contradictions in Knowledge Management Research. Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 549-573. Venkitachalam, K, Scheepers, R, & Gibbs, M. (2003). Supporting Knowledge Strategy in Consulting Organizations: Codification, Personalization or Both. Retrieved March 9, 2017, from http://www.pacis-net.org/file/2003/papers/modern-business/207.pdf Venkitachalam, K., & Bosua, R. (2014). Roles enabling the mobilization of organizational knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 396-410. Verona, G., Prandelli, E., & Sawhney, M. (2006). Innovation and Virtual Environments: Towards Virtual Knowledge Brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6), 765-788. Yonglei, S., & Xinghua, D. (2013). Strategic orientation, knowledge competence and innovation performance. 2013 6th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, 31(1), 502–509. Zanjani, M., & Mehregan, M. (2009). Knowledge Management Strategy Determination in Programs: A Case of Iran Tax Administration Reform and Automation. Information Technology Journal, 8(4), 571-576. Read More