Knowledge management and innovation: networks and networking

Abstract

Begins with a critical review of the literature on knowledge management, arguing that its focus on IT to create a network structure may limit its potential for encouraging knowledge sharing across social communities. Two cases of interactive innovation are contrasted. One focused almost entirely on using IT (intranet) for knowledge sharing, resulting in a plethora of independent intranets which reinforced existing organizational and social boundaries with electronic``fences''. In the other, while IT was used to provide a network to encourage sharing, there was also recognition of the importance of face-to-face interaction for sharing tacit knowledge. The emphasis was on encouraging active networking among dispersed communities, rather than relying on IT networks. Argues for a community-based model of knowledge management for interactive innovation and contrasts this with the cognitive-based view that underpins many IT-led knowledge management initiatives.

Communication Choices to Engage Participation of Rural Indonesian Craftspeople in Development Projects

“…Face-to-face meeting conveyed tacit knowledge by the style of speech, dress, or even means of transportation used; in addition to the verbal message. Tacit knowledge builds trust and rapport which are essential to effective networking practice [12]. In addition, collective face-to-face interaction enabled immediate response from community leaders and other members.…”

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER (KT) PRACTICES IN SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (SMEs) of TURKISH TEXTILE AND APPAREL INDUSTRY

“…The media and channels of communication are one of the sources for the creation, storage and transfer of knowledge. Swan et al (1999) conducted a study comparing two cases. One of them focused almost entirely on using IT (intranet) for knowledge transfer without considering any social factors.…”

IT Systems to Support Innovation

“…The contributions of Hansen et al and Swan et al has been to identify the features of codified knowledge management systems that differentiated them from systems dedicated to supporting the transfer of tacit knowledge (Hansen, Nohria et al 1999) (Swan, Newell et al 1999). Swan characterized such systems as applying a "cognitive" approach to knowledge management systems.…”

“…Recent contributions to the theoretical aspects of codified knowledge reuse have come from (Hansen, Nohria et al 1999), (Swan, Newell et al 1999), (Dixon 2000) and (Markus 2001). The contributions of Hansen et al and Swan et al has been to identify the features of codified knowledge management systems that differentiated them from systems dedicated to supporting the transfer of tacit knowledge (Hansen, Nohria et al 1999) (Swan, Newell et al 1999).…”

“…Such systems are designed to increase revenue and profits for an organization by a) Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practice across the organization b) Providing a faster solution development to technical problems and hence reduce TTM c) Accelerating innovation rates by bringing diverse views and experience to bear on an issue d) Breaking down geographic/organization barriers e) Improving efficiency by learning from others Both the academics and practitioners who have been involved in developing systems to support knowledge creation have tended to interpret such strategies as bifurcated into (i) those focusing on explicit knowledge (so-called "codification" or "cognitive" strategies) and (ii) those focusing on tacit knowledge (so-called "personalization" or "community" strategies) (Hansen, Nohria et al 1999), (Swan, Newell et al 1999).…”