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.