The intent of this paper is to critically reexamine the assorted cognition direction theoretical accounts and models. The reappraisal found that assorted cognition direction theoretical accounts and models varies in positions runing from the basic premise of the articulation and transportation of tacit and expressed cognition to the more complex and complicated premise that cognition is rational capital and it is mechanistic in position every bit good as an of import plus that has to be managed expeditiously for house ‘s success. In this paper, knowledge direction theoretical accounts are divided into three classs: cognition class theoretical accounts, rational capital theoretical accounts, and socially constructed theoretical accounts. Besides, two cognition direction models will be discussed in this paper. Finally, a KM theoretical account and model is tentatively suggested to move as a utile usher for farther research and organisational application.
Presents, the universe is to the full sing an epoch, viz. : “ cognition age ” or the “ cognition economic system ” . In cognition economic system, cognition is the important trade good due to the quickly technological promotion. The technological inventions are extinguishing the spread between viing companies and the corporate cognition of the employees become the cardinal factor in bring forthing advanced and competitory merchandises or services ( Sunassee and Sewry, 2002 ) . Since antecedently directors did non promote diffusion and sharing of cognition among employees, altering in mentality is required for pull offing the cognition efficaciously. The knowledge-driven activities in organisations and of the broader economic and societal life lead to the direction of cognition become really of import ( Sunassee and Sewry, 2002 ) . In general, this managerial activity has been known as Knowledge Management ( KM ) .
Previous research on cognition direction indicates the being of assorted definitions of cognition direction. Harmonizing to Nonaka and Takeuchi ( 1995 ) , knowledge direction is “ the capableness of a company to make new cognition, circulate it throughout the organisation and embody it in merchandises, services, and systems. ” Duffy ( 1999 ) defines knowledge direction as “ the designation, growing and effectual application of an administration ‘s critical cognition. ” Knowledge direction has been defined in another term, which is an organized and expressed procedure to bring forth, regenerate, and use cognition to maximise an organisation ‘s knowledge-related effectivity and returns from its cognition assets ( Wiig, 1997 ) . Alavi and Leidner ( 1999 ) specify cognition direction as “ a systemic and organizationally specified procedure for geting, forming, and pass oning both silent and expressed cognition of employees so that other employees may do usage of it to be more effectual and productive in their work ” . Besides, O’Dell et al. , ( 1998 ) specify cognition direction as “ a witting scheme of acquiring the right cognition to the right people at the right clip and assisting people portion and set information into action in ways that strive to better organisational public presentation ” . For case, Beckman ( 1999 ) specify cognition direction as “ the formalisation of and entree to see, cognition and expertness that create new capablenesss, enable superior public presentation, promote invention and heighten client value ” . In general, KM is the procedure of making, hive awaying, distributing, and using cognition.
By reexamining the significance of cognition direction and the complexness of its nature, it is seasonably to seek to understand the latest theories underlying cognition and cognition direction. Hence, this paper will critically analyze the latest theoretical accounts and models of cognition direction and discuss on the premises and positions of each theoretical account and model. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the current apprehension of the theory and pattern of the emerging field of cognition direction by critically measuring bing cognition direction theoretical accounts and models. Therefore, employers or practicians in organisations can understand their constructs and improved attacks can be developed and applied to organisation and to those who need to work and implement cognition direction.
This paper will get down by showing the purposes and aims and followed with a short treatment on the types of cognition. This is followed with the treatment on some of the bing cognition direction theoretical accounts and models.
Types of Knowledge
In today ‘s competitory concern environment, merely the cognition of an organisation can supply the footing for organisational reclamation and sustainable competitory advantages. Organizational cognition can be classified into two typical types of cognition: explicit and tacit. Harmonizing to Polanyi ( 1967 ) , expressed cognition is the cognition which is easy to formalise, reassign, and shop ; documented, articulated into formal linguistic communication, officially expressible and easy to pass on ; tacit cognition is refering to thoughts, feelings, and single experience, which is more complicated and hard to portion with each others.
Explicit cognition is the fact and can be codified and transmitted in a systematic and formal linguistic communication. It is normally informations, which is internal to an organisation and can be easy collected. Tacit cognition is the personal experiences, context-specific cognition that is hard to formalise record or articulate. It really resides in the caputs of the people, behaviour and perceptual experience ( Frid, 2000 ) . Examples are intuitions, intuitions, penetrations, beliefs and values. Both silent and expressed cognition are needed for an organisation to accomplish greater public presentation ( Sanchez et. Al. 1996 ) .
Knowledge Management Models and Frameworks
Knowledge Category Models
These types of theoretical account categorize cognition into distinct elements. One of the most celebrated KM theoretical accounts fits into this class, the Knowledge Spiral theoretical account by Nonaka and Takeuchi ( 1995 ) . This theoretical account presents a high degree conceptual representation of the cognition dimensions, viz. silent and expressed cognition. The theoretical account makes a figure of premises, viz. :
1. Socialization – tacit cognition can be transferred through mundane chumminess to go the silent cognition of others
2. Externalization – tacit cognition can go expressed cognition through a procedure of formalising a organic structure of cognition
3. Internalization – explicit cognition can be transferred into silent cognition in others through a procedure of interpreting theories into pattern
4. Combination – explicit cognition can be transferred to explicit cognition in others through a procedure of uniting bing theories
One unfavorable judgment of the theoretical account is that cognition transportation in organisations is much more complicated and convoluted than this simple matrix suggests. The theoretical account besides assumes an integrating of tacit and expressed cognition ; frequently this is non the instance. This theoretical account is shown in figure no. 1 below.
A simple but more luxuriant version of Nonaka ‘s theoretical account is shown in figure no. 2 ( Hedlund and Nonaka, 1993 ) . This theoretical account assumes there are four different degrees of ‘carriers ‘ , or ‘agents ‘ , of cognition in organisations, viz. the person, the group, the organisation and the inter-organizational sphere ( clients, providers, rivals, etc. ) . The above theoretical account is helpful by associating the bearers to the types of cognition ; it remains debatable in that it assumes the bearers, like the cognition, can be merely separated.
Another illustration of a cognition class theoretical account is that of Boisot, ( 1998 ) , as shown in figure no. 3. Boisot ‘s theoretical account considers knowledge as statute or uncodified, diffused or undiffused, within an organisation. Boisot ( 1998 ) uses the term ‘codified ‘ to mention to knowledge that can be readily prepared for transmittal intents ( e.g. fiscal information ) . Harmonizing to Bosiot ( 1998 ) , the term ‘uncodified ‘ refers to knowledge that can non be easy prepared for transmittal intents ( e.g. experience ) ; the term ‘diffused ‘ refers to knowledge that is readily shared while ‘undiffused ‘ refers to knowledge that is non readily shared.
The theoretical account presents the undermentioned features:
1. Knowledge categorized as both statute and undiffused is referred to as properness cognition. In this instance, cognition is prepared for transmittal but is intentionally restricted to a selectively little population, on a ‘need to cognize ‘ footing ( e.g. projected net incomes, portion monetary value issues ) – top left quarter-circle
2. Knowledge that is comparatively uncodified and undiffused is referred to as personal cognition ( e.g. perceptual experiences, penetrations, experiences ) – underside left quadrant
cognition that is both statute and diffused is referred to as public cognition ( e.g. diaries, books, libraries ) – top right quarter-circle
Knowledge which is comparatively diffused but besides uncodified is labelled common sense – underside right quarter-circle. Boisot, ( 1998 ) considers such cognition as being built up easy by a procedure of socialisation, harbouring imposts and intuition.
There are few similarities between Nonaka ‘s theoretical account and Boisot ‘s theoretical account. For illustration, classification of explicit and tacit cognition in Nonaka ‘s theoretical account has a grade of correspondence with Boisot ‘s mention to codified and uncodified cognition. The horizontal dimension relates to the spread or diffusion of cognition across the organisation in both theoretical accounts. However, Boisot ‘s theoretical account experiences the same restrictions as Nonaka ‘s theoretical account in that codified and uncodified are but two distinct classs of cognition. In add-on, the thought of diffused cognition is instead general and it is non clear if it includes integrating cognition within the organisation, every bit good as circulating it.
Figure No. 3-Knowledge Category Model ( Boisot, 1998 )
Intellectual Capital Models
Management gurus such as Drucker ( 1993 ) and Brooking ( 1997 ) and practitioner icons such as Edvinsson, ( 1997 ) elucidated the impression of Intellectual Capital ( IC ) . Knowledge and capital have been linked together for many old ages. Knowledge is being capitalized as a resource comparable to land or oil. However, we besides need to concentrate on the intangible elements which knowledge contains such as employee accomplishments, experiences, patients, right of first publications, trade names, licencing chances, research and development, advanced usage of assets such as databases, etc. ( Quintas et Al, 1997 ) . As these type of elements are non usually recorded on the traditional organisational balance sheet they are referred to Intellectual Assets ; hence the term Intellectual Capital.
KM is actively concerned with the strategic mentality and operational tactics required for pull offing human centered, rational assets ( Brooking, 1997 ) . Harmonizing to Peters ( 1992 ) , KM can impact rational capital or as acknowledging or rediscovering assets that the organisation are non utilizing to full potency, finally employees. As these attacks imply that the cardinal countries of KM are the direction of IC it is deserving reexamining a typical IC theoretical account. The theoretical account, shown below in figure no. 5, is the Intellectual Capital theoretical account from Skandia Insurance which is adopted from Chase ( 1997 ) , and Roos and Roos ( 1997 ) . Harmonizing to Edvinsson and Malone ( 1997 ) rational capital concsists the applied experience, organisational engineering, client relationships and professional accomplishments that provide Skandia with a competitory advantage in the market.
One job that can be associated with this theoretical account is the acceptance of a scientific attack to knowledge. This is apparent through the categorization of cognition as a trade good associating it to organisation capital. This position of rational capital ignores the political and societal facets of KM. KM can be decomposed into nonsubjective elements instead than being socio-political phenomena from the position of rational capital. This is similar to the Nonaka and Takeuchi, ( 1995 ) attack.
As befits a new country of enquiry, much analytical work is focused on categorizing, function and measurement of cognition types and procedures. Although this is helpful, the epistemic footing of the field can non be ignored ( McAdam and McCreedy, 1999 ) . Hence, we need to encompass socially constructed theoretical accounts of KM.
Figure No. 4-Intellectual Capital Model of KM ( Chase, 1997 )
Socially Constructed Models
This group of theoretical accounts assumes a broad definition of cognition sing it as being per se linked within the societal and learning procedures of the organisation. KM is concerned with the building, gaining control, reading, incarnation, airing and usage of cognition. These constituents are represented in Demerest ‘s ( 1997 ) Knowledge Management theoretical account. The theoretical account is developed from the original work of Clark and Staunton, ( 1989 ) and Nonaka and Takeuchi, ( 1995 ) . It can be compared to that of Jordan and Jones, ( 1997 ) who speak of cognition acquisition, job resolution, airing, ownership and storage and that of Kruizinga et Al. ( 1997 ) who include cognition policy, substructure and civilization.
First, the theoretical account concerns the building of cognition within the organisation. The theoretical account assumes that constructed cognition is embodied and so the corporal cognition is disseminated throughout the organisation. Finally, the cognition is used to derive economic value with respect to organisational end products. The black pointers in figure no. 5 show the primary flow way while the white arrows show the more recursive flows.
Figure No. 5 -Knowledge Management Model – Demerest, ( 1997 )
Demerest ‘s theoretical account is attractive in that it does non presume any given definition of cognition but instead invites a more holistic attack to knowledge building. However, it does connote a simplistic emanation attack to the flow of cognition transportation, while in world this may be highly rapid and circulatory.
To get the better of this spread a somewhat modified version of Demerest ‘s theoretical account has been developed by McAdam and McCreedy ‘s ( in figure no. 6 ) . First, the theoretical account concerns the building of cognition within an organisation where either a scientific or societal paradigm may be adopted. The scientific position of cognition takes a “ cognition is truth ” position ( Morgan, 1986 ) , which considers that cognition is a organic structure of facts and rational Torahs therefore advancing a non-personal position of cognition, accomplishments and undertakings ( Lave and Wenger, 1991 ) . In add-on, the societal position of cognition is concerned with the societal and learning procedures within an organisation. However, this attack assumes that cognition building is inequality, struggle, domination, subordination and use influences every bit good as more traditional behavioural inquiries associated with efficiency and motive ( Alvesson and Willmott, 1996 ) . Therefore societal cognition building is a dynamic procedure of contextuality instead than the assimilation of a organic structure of facts. In the McAdam and McCreedy ‘s ( 1999 ) theoretical account depicted in figure no. 6, cognition building is non limited to scientific inputs through expressed programmes but includes a procedure of societal interaction.
The deductions of this broader construct of cognition building must be reflected in the embodiment/dissemination of cognition as portion of the organisation ‘s KM attack. There is small point in broadening the construct of cognition building merely to restrict the incarnation and airing techniques used or to coerce bing techniques onto new cognition. Trying to make so will take to dissatisfactory consequences, defeat and a negative position to KM caused by the mismatch between construct and application. Knowledge initiatives installed in the organisation will reflect the cognition use.
Demerest ( 1997 ) describes ‘use ‘ ( as deployed in figure no. 6 ) as “ the production of commercial value for the client ” , while increasing commercial value is a cardinal aim of KM. Therefore cognition usage must be employed through the application of a complementary attack for emancipatory sweetenings and organisation end products. This will allow the organisation to be viewed and reformed from different positions that will ease uninterrupted invention, therefore making the ultimate concern benefits for the organisation as a whole. While the interconnecting vectors ( black pointers ) show the primary flow of activity, more recursive pointers are added to reflect the circulating nature of activity flows. Therefore, it shows that KM is non a simple consecutive procedure.
Figure No. 6-Modified Version of Demerest ‘s Knowledge Management Model ( McAdam and McCreedy, 1999 )
Knowledge Management Frameworks
Stankosky and Baldanza ( 2001 ) developed a cognition direction model which addresses enabling factors such as acquisition, civilization, leading, organisation and engineering ( mention to calculate no. 7 ) . This model presents that cognition direction covers a broad scope of subjects that include cognitive scientific discipline, communicating, single and organisational behaviour, psychological science, finance, economic sciences, human resource, direction, strategic planning, system thought, procedure reengineering, system technology, computing machine engineerings and package and library scientific discipline.
This model consists four major foundations of an organisation which is of import for cognition direction are leading, organisation construction, engineering substructure and acquisition. The function of leading is practising strategic planning and systems believing attacks, doing best usage of resources, furthering a civilization that encourages unfastened duologue and squad acquisition, and for promoting and honoring hazard pickings, larning and cognition sharing. Organization construction should ease personal interactions and support communities of pattern to capture tacit and explicit cognition within the organisation. Besides, organisational construction should ease trust among people within the organisation and promote free exchange of cognition. Technology substructure allows exchange of information without formal constructions. Technology substructure should heighten the efficient and effectual gaining control of both tacit and expressed cognition. It should besides back up cognition sharing in the full organisation. Last, larning is responsible for pull offing information in order to construct enterprise broad cognition and usage that cognition to organisational acquisition, alteration and public presentation betterment.
Figure No. 7-Basic Disciplines Underliing Knowledge Management and its Enabling Factors ( Stankosky and Baldanza, 2001 )
Karadesh et Al. ( 2009 ) developed a cognition direction model that emphasizes on developing stages such as cognition substructure, cognition combination, cognition filtering, cognition depository, cognition sharing, cognition application, and eventually, cognition public presentation across the KM procedure ( mention to calculate no. 8 ) .
The first component is knowledge substructure, which relies on constructing the proper civilization for Knowledge Management System and establishes the consciousness of the importance of KM among the persons in the organisation. The 2nd component is knowledge combination that functions as a impermanent depository of collected information from the substructure stage. The 3rd component is knowledge rating which is used to measure the cognition based on the value ; truth and relevancy after the cognition have been combined from different beginnings ( Sunassee and Sewry, 2002 ) . Knowledge filtering is the 4th component that prepares cognition to be stored in the following stage, after traveling through categorization, classification and organisation. The 5th component is knowledge depository that maps as storage for the cognition collected in the past phases. It besides can be viewed as organisation memory and keeping of cognition assets. Knowledge sharing is a nucleus procedure in the procedure of the KM that transportations and portions knowledge among the persons in the organisation. Knowledge application is the 7th component that applies and represents information to knowledge searchers in appropriate affair. The last component is knowledge public presentation which is used to measure every KM system, procedure, public presentation, and impact of KM. It is executing harmonizing to the organisation ends and aims.
Figure No. 8-Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Management Process
( Karadesh et al. , 2009 )
Decision
The reappraisal of bing cognition direction theoretical accounts and models has seen a broad spectrum of point of views. Knowledge direction has been seen from the categorical position in which cognition are categorized into distinct elements as seen in Boisot, Nonaka, and Nonaka and Hedlund ‘s theoretical accounts to the more complicated and complex position of cognition that is mechanistic and socially constructed orientation ( McAdam and McCreedy ‘s, 1999 ) . Furthermore, these knowledge direction theoretical accounts have made mention to: foremost, the procedure of pull offing the flow cognition ; 2nd, classification theoretical accounts are mechanistic ; 3rd, the rational capital theoretical account assumed that rational capital are important assets in organisation and should be pull off expeditiously for house ‘s success ; 4th, Demerest ‘s theoretical account is per se linked with the societal and learning procedure within organisations ; McAdam and McCreedy ‘s theoretical account is somewhat modified from Demerest ‘s theoretical account, which seeks to turn to the restrictions by explicitly demoing the influence of both societal and scientific paradigms of cognition building, and extends the “ usage ” component to cover both concern and employee benefits. Stankosky and Baldanza ‘s cognition direction model emphasized that leading, organisation construction, engineering substructure and acquisition are of import foundations for cognition direction in an organisation ; eventually, Karadesh et Al. ‘s cognition direction model represents with extended and elaborate procedures and tends to supply guidelines for put to deathing KM successfully, save clip and attempts and to avoid inaccuracies. Even though cognition direction theoretical accounts and models have evolved from clip to clip, fundamentally the theoretical accounts and models provide a manner of transforming managerial activities and steering managerial attempts in pull offing cognition in the organisations.
The KM theoretical account and model that are suggested to move as a utile usher for farther research and organisational application is McAdam and McCreedy ‘s theoretical account and Karadesh et Al. ‘s model. McAdam and McCreedy ‘s theoretical account combines scientific and socially constructed cognition, and besides the “ uses/benefits ” of KM are viewed as both emancipatory and as concern oriented. Karadesh et Al. ‘s model provides a wide analysis of KM procedure that can be used to further the development of organisation cognition and heighten the organisational impact of persons throughout the organisations. Therefore, it is suggested that this theoretical account and model could move as a utile usher for farther research and literature rating in the country of cognition direction.
