Creating knolwedge-based value (Jul. 26)

According to Vorakulpipat & Rezgui (2008), knowledge management (KM) has gone through three distinct generations. The first generation focused on sharing knowledge, where KM would support the transmission and absorption required for effective knowledge transfer. The second generation, the present one, emphasizes the creation of knowledge as a recognition that sharing is not enough and that in order for an organization to learn and evolve it must also generate new knowledge. The third generation, the future, should be about creating value: sharing and generating knowledge are not enough unless the actually deliver some added value to a product or service. It should be noted that "value" does not necessarily mean profit; as we have discussed previously it may be value embedded in social capital or in the capability to innovate.

Vorakulpipat & Rezgui (2008) follow by stating that up until now, KM has been understood from three different dimensions. (1) A socio-technical dimension in which ICT is seen as a necessary but not sufficient component of KM. Actually, the socio-technical approach has been around for decades in information systems to address the human (social) aspects which are crucial for the development and use of any such system. (2) A socio-organizational dimension in which ICT is not even a key element and where the focus is on the organizational culture, seen as a network of conversations (cf. Winograd & Flores, 1987) where issues such as motivation, satisfaction and trust are required for effective KM. (3) A learning process dimension addresses the fact that KM is all about dynamic capabilities enabled by a continuous learning cycle (e.g. through Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI model).

Adding value through KM is then a matter or striking the right balance between human networks, social capital, intellectual capital, technology and change management. All these are important, but a particular KM strategy will determine where the most value might be obtained. Specific value might take the form of: trust, respect, understanding, employee satisfaction and, of course, profit obtained through innovations. But such innovations, need not only be based on knowledge but be also client-centered and service-driven, because this is where value is materialized in the end.

In order to illustrate this relationship, we discussed some of the opportunities for KM in each of the specific project groups and the way that value could be created in them. The following figure shows the summary of our discussion.

Knowledge managament and innovation (Jul. 19)

Innovation is a generic and sometimes confusing concept. There may be industrial, social, cultural, incremental, radical as well as being the result of an explicit aim (such as in R&D) or an emergent (sometimes unexpected) result of a learning process. Some place the weight of innovation on the fact that the new product or service is actually introduced successfully into the market, as opposed to just a new idea that is never marketed. Some emphasize the novelty behind an innovation, while others admit knowledge or technology transfer as a potential source of innovation. For example, the same product or service may be introduced into a new context or market implying a new innovation (since there is no guarantee that it will have the same success it has had elsewhere). In any case, the role of knowledge and knowledge management as pillars of innovation is long recognized and empirically demonstrated.

With respect to the modes of learning and innovation, Jensen et al. (2007) make a distinction between the Science, Technology and Innovation, or STI-mode, and the Doing, Using and Interacting, or DUI-mode. STI is borne out of formal, science and technology-based codified knowledge, emphasizing so-called know-why type of knowledge. In addition, STI usually implies a formal documentation of the whole learning and innovation process, which often results in the generation of new global knowledge, despite having a local, problem-based origin. Because it is formal, STI has widely used (standardized) measures for assessing its presence and strength in firms (e.g. investment in R&D, scientifically trained personnel, cooperation with universities or research centers). DUI, on the other hand is much less formal and is akin to organizational learning in that it stems from experience-based relational learning. as such, DUI focuses on know-how and know-who types of knowledge and is made possible in flexible organizations that foster knowledge sharing especially across disciplines and organizational units. While the presence of either STI or DUI enable a firm to be more innovative, it is a combination of both which is usually behind firms that excel in innovation. as a consequence, knowledge management may be used to propel the integration between STI and DUI-modes by enabling shared access to codified knowledge, as well as supporting knowledge-based interaction within the firm and across its boundaries (clients, partners, market in general).

The role of knowledge management for innovation is not new, but the focus has shifted as organizations move towards a service-based paradigm, as argued by Darroch (2005). Rather than seeing resources as the main assets of the organization, the key are the services those resources actually deliver. And in order for a resource to deliver a service, it must be coupled to a capability (skills or experience which enable exploiting a particular resource). Seen this way, knowledge is a resource and knowledge management is a coordination mechanism which supports its transformation into a capability, specifically the capability to innovate. A study of New Zealand firms shows that this is the case for all three phases of knowledge management. Acquisition, Dissemination and Responsiveness to Knowledge all contribute to innovation (or rather, innovative firms usually support these three KM functions).

No hay clase Julio 12

Olvidé decurles que debido a un compromiso adquirido antes del inicio del curso, este martes 12 de julio no habrá clase. La idea es reponerla después, pero por ahora significa que la lectura para el 12 es ahora para el 19. Nos vemos entonces.

Knowledge management in Colombia (Jul. 5)

Knowledge management (KM), we have seen, is a rich, multi-disciplinary field. But it should be noted that the various theories that inform KM have mostly been borne within developed countries and it is worth reflecting upon their applicability in different contexts, such as the Colombian one. We have discussed the need for KM in an information / knowledge / networked society where globalized capitalism dominates; however, this generalization of the whole of society under a single market-based understanding is problematic and risky. In Colombia, the idea of a networked nation ("nación-en-red") has been around for some time without emphasizing the economic dimension of the network, but rather its emergence out of a self-organization of our inherent diversity in geographic, economic, ethnic, cultural and socio-historical terms (Fals-Borda, 2003: 19). This implies, for instance, that the strengthening of a networked nation should lead us to our own vernacular roots, more authentic within our context, without the need for xenophobic attitudes. It is a matter of protecting our endogenous knowledge, preventing it from being given away to "the North" only to be fed back after having been transformed by foreigners according to their logic and interests (ibid.: 25-26), such as when traditional medicine is appropriated by multi-national pharmaceuticals or when our artists are reshaped by corporations who transform their identity to cater to an international commercial pre-fabricated taste. The challenge is thus to look inwards without loosing a global perspective, through the development of alternative and contextualized scientific, cultural and political paradigms useful for our own vital needs (ibid.: 82).

It is in our own best interest to understand and accept the fact that knowledge transfer (or the introduction of foreign innovations or products) alone does not always result appropriate for problems generated within our context. Even if this knowledge is amazingly sophisticated, novel and of proven utility in different environments, it may end up generating chaos while at the same time weakening the creation of local knowledge (ibid.: 87). Again, the idea is not to isolate ourselves from the external intellectual world but to accumulate knowledge ("suma de saberes") congruent with out growth and progress and linked to locally developed knowledge (ibid.:92). As a consequence, the activity of knowledge management in Colombia should (1) foster the creation and sharing of locally developed knowledge, and (2) be supported by KM theories and instruments that have been contextualized and linked to local scientific theories and culture.

In that sense, it is worthwhile to consider the state of current knowledge management in the country, as well as some of the specific challenges and opportunities it has raised. In a  2007 survey paper, Baquero and Schulte explore KM practices in 50 Colombian organizations. While the study shows that there is an increasing interest in developing KM programs, departments and systems (around half of the organizations surveyed were planning to develop KM strategies at that time), it also shows the worrying fact that very few organizations actually believe that their value systems and culture facilitate KM practices. Despite these limitations and the fact that most efforts are weakly supported by underlying KM systems (i.e. ICT), the results have mostly been effective, including: increased knowledge sharing, higher productivity, better customer relationships, improved organizational memory, increased innovation and more employee involvement. Some of the challenges and shortcommings identified are: the lack of measurement of KM effectiveness, the difficulty in capturing tacit knowledge, the tendency to see KM as theoretical (generating resistance to KM), the lack of resources, the fact that sharing knowledge is often seen as loosing power and low overall adoption. This means that there are strong opportunities in terms of consulting, research and development of contextualized theories and systems for KM in Colombia.