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.
10 comentarios:
Reviewing the knowledge management reading is divided into 3 generations, where the first is based on the exchange of knowledge, the second is to create and generate new knowledge and the third is based on creating added value at a premium to product or service.
Reviewing the above and crossing the projects presented by different groups in class, although knowledge management is in a second generation and is considering future third generation, the various organizations presented the topic of knowledge management is not one of their main concerns and for that reason there may be very large and important companies where much time is wasted, there is an on cost and operational burden on some activities, for items such as presented in the study of each group within The company is not a needs analysis and creation of value that would take the management of knowledge, these manual processes that become repetitive because knowledge is becoming in some people and there is a level of organization, for this reason that if anyone of these leaves the company always going to lose that knowledge and will have to begin almost zero causing a negative impact on organizations.
KM as a value generator inside the organizations represents as it is described by Vorakulpipat and Rezgui (2008), the third generation of knowledge. This one should become progressively in a clear objective for the companies, by starting from models and systems adaptable to the organizational structures which are particular for each corporation with a clear intentionality to modify (if it is necessary) cultural aspects inside them in order to guarantee the value creation from an effective knowledge management.
By this way, it is possible to see KM as a real tool for optimizing processes such common nowadays like, efficient project management, improvement and innovation in services and not only in products, effective knowledge transfer and some other aspects so that exist a value producer supported by KM and this, in an initial approach, it fits with several of the ideas, for the class' projects exposed by the groups.
Johnatan Martínez V.
Referring to the reading, and the work done in class I can say that the technology is not the solution for a strategy of Km, as we see in the examples of the different groups in all cases the tools already exist but there is a lack of confidence employees for use in a strategy km This basically is because there is no clear social dimension - organizational within the company with an emphasis on organizational culture that gives them confidence and motivation to do it, so as not has this maturation process did not make it through the second generation of KM. As shown in the examples given in class, there is a limiting step of tacit knowledge of employees to the organization's explicit knowledge that are required for documentation bases, traceability schemes, ie, evidence problems in knowledge sharing but the solutions proposed in class (simple and economic) change could be given total vision you have today and provide value to the business end, showing that it is only question of addressing these common problems in companies to move from second generation to third generation of KM.
As a side note, I have implemented this analysis carried out in the class in my professional development, and are incorporating strategies to solve our difficulties from the perspective of knowledge sharing, decreasing the service time per call and by type of service in some cases up to 30%.
Juan Felipe Barajas L
Reading the document developed by Vorakulpipat and Rezgui we can see that there are 3 generations
the management of knowledge, the first aimed at the transfer and exchange knowledge, the second aims at knowledge generation and the third seeks to create value from knowledge management in organizations.
We mentioned then that most of the Colombian business sector is
so far in the first genración, if we see the results of investigations by Florentino Malaver and Marisela Vargas can be clearly seen that most companies are in the lower levels of innovation, that is simply not innovate or generate improvements within the organization.
KM's potential to create value is determined by the degre to which tacit knowledge embedded in proceses and procedures of an organization helps to empower these people or another departments with new knowledge to improve their practices, for example using methods such as CESI mdoel.
This will have two efects: 1. The new explicit and tacit knowledge will be generated in the context of company itself. 2. By improving the understanding of the proceses themselves (employees) generate conditions to provide the decision-making in the company or even, they can make better decisions in their routine activities.
Finally, the importance of understanding the generations of KM is to identify which is currently the company's generation and if the policies are actually doing to help continue the evolution towards the next and to create value. For in such case, to include adjustments to these policies using cybernetics dynamics.
According to the description of Vorakupipat and Rezgui on the three generations that have passed the knowledge management business I can conclude that in our country are mostly in the first generation. First generation consists of the exchange, transmission and absorption of knowledge, but not able to create new knowledge. Also it is very difficult that this new knowledge to offer additional value to the products or services with businesses in our country.
Brought the exercise is interesting because the ideas and contributions were not only given by the group in charge of the presentation but that they also adopted other proposals that emerged from the discussion of the topic.
The knowledge management (KM) has gone through three generations, this discipline due to its nature has undergone a development that was highlighted in three generations, stands dimencion perspective or from which the Km can be developed at the organizational level, a socio-technical dimencion, socio-organizational and a last that has to do with learning, based on the foregoing, the KM can add value as trust, respect, understanding, employee satisfaction and, of course, the gains obtained through innovations. more discussion of the work of each group we see that in the event that we could focus Davivienda design tool based on a documentary, lessons learned, taxonomic systems, collaboration technology, mining prediction, which would allow a better location and efficiency of area, reducing job costs, improved reputation, increased contact with other area.
De acuerdo con Vorakulpipat y Rezgui (2008), la gestión del conocimiento (KM) en sus diferentes generaciones ha tenido un proceso evolutivo, la tercera generación, donde se menciona la creación de valor, es una herramienta estratégica para las organizaciones de hoy en día.
La tecnología por si sola no significa nada, sino que es muy importante la relación con el usuario, este es un factor clave en la creación de valor. En la medida en que las organizaciones fortalezcan este aspecto, y también desarrollen las otras dimensiones, como por ejemplo la capacidad de aprendizaje y la cultura organizacional, estarán mas cerca de lograrlo.
También es necesario incentivar la comunicación, la confianza, el respeto y el entendimiento, teniendo en cuenta que los activos intangibles generan más valor que los tangibles. Para lograr esa generación de valor en las compañías, se requiere de una maduración en los procesos de KM, ese es uno de los objetivos de este curso donde aprovechando los conceptos anteriormente mencionados y haciendo uso del modelo organizacional para creación de conocimiento SECI, generaremos un prototipo para iniciar con un proceso de KM en una organización.
La lectura de Vorakulpipat y Rezgui (2008) plantea un tema que es visto en muchas de las organizaciones actuales y son la inversiones en Tecnologías de la Información que finalmente no son utilizadas y que por definición no estarían generando valor. Es probable que ese fenómeno sea debido a pobres procesos de transferencia tecnológica en las cuales no haya una verdadera integración con los usuarios directa e indirectamente sean afectados por esta nueva tecnología, La lectura nos obliga a plantearnos una nueva estrategia dentro de nuestras organizaciones en la cual seamos más rigurosos al momento de evaluar sistemas de gestión del conocimiento y nos ayude a maximizar la generación de valor en las nuevas adquisiciones.
The third generation of KM, proposed by Vorakulpipat & Rezgui, indicates that future of KM is sharing and creating knowledge (1 and 2 generation) to create value on a product or service. Also, the organizations understanting the three dimensions of KM (socio-technical) (socio-organizational) (learning process dimension) must centered the attention in the service and in the client, to align and review the KM strategy, and in that way generate more value in the organizations. In the course projects, value is generated through a specific KM strategy looking to achieve the objectives. Improve effectiveness, reduce costs and customer satisfaction are some value creations that KM projects could obtain.
Publicar un comentario