Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people

Abstract

Argues that the knowledge management process can be categorized into knowledge creation, knowledge validation, knowledge presentation, knowledge distribution, and knowledge application activities. To capitalize on knowledge, an organization must be swift in balancing its knowledge management activities. In general, such a balancing act requires changes in organizational culture, technologies, and techniques. A number of organizations believe that by focusing exclusively on people, technologies, or techniques, they can manage knowledge. However, that exclusive focus on people, technologies, or techniques does not enable a firm to sustain its competitive advantages. It is, rather, the interaction between technology, techniques, and people that allow an organization to manage its knowledge effectively. By creating a nurturing and`l earning-by-doing'' kind of environment, an organization can sustain its competitive advantages.

Compartilhando Conhecimento Em Projeto Automotivo: O Ecosport Da Ford Do Brasil

“…A primeira delas apoia-se em Nonaka, Toyama e Konno (2000), assumindo que a rede informal de relacionamentos construída no compartilhamento de conhecimentos entre os membros de uma equipe de trabalho entre si, bem como entre estes e os membros de outras equipes da organização, deveria ser fortalecida, pois contribui para a capacitação da equipe. A segunda premissa tem como referência Bhatt (2001) Para melhor entender o fenômeno da criação e compartilhamento do conhecimento, é importante também atentar para o ambiente no qual a espiral se desenrola. Esse ambiente pode ser identificado como Ba, conceito criado inicialmente pelo filó-sofo japonês Kitaro Nishida e adaptado por Nonaka e Takeuchi para o seu modelo de criação e transmissão do conhecimento (Nonaka et al, 2000;Nonaka & Konno, 2005 No caso estudado, o compartilhamento de experiências e conhecimento entre os atores do grupo forma a relação entre eles.…”

Knowledge and Discourse Matters

“…KM has often been criticised for laying too much emphasis on ICT and IT (e.g., Shadbolt and Milton, 1999;Prusak, 2001;Grover and Davenport, 2001;Bhatt, 2001). However, it would be redundant to insist that technology plays no part in KM.…”

“…Knowledge had become branded as the essential feature of the successful company, linked to innovation abilities and capabilities (e.g., Drucker, 1998b;Ichijo, 2007;Leonard and Straus, 1997), and competitive edge (e.g., Bhatt, 2001;Quintane, Casselmam, Reiche and Nylund, 2011;Grover and Davenport, 2001) amongst many other positive attributes. As Spender and Grant (1996) summarise, knowledge had become acknowledged as the main source of 'economic rent' (their terms), and its management had become a significant concern in business thinking (Shadbolt and Milton, 1999).…”

“…Despite these difficulties, the Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation continues to dominate the KM theoretical landscape, with numerous other theorists following in its wake in one fashion or another, mainly through an uncritical acceptance and adoption of the tacit/explicit explanation at its heart (e.g., Bhatt, 2001;Rai, 2011).…”

“…Technology is widely seen as an influential driver for the development and uptake of KM (Drucker, 1998a;Brown and Duguid, 1999;Grant, 2002;Bhatt, 2001;Boisot, 2002;Prusak, 2001). Panahi, Watson and Partridge (2013), for instance, emphasise the role of Web 2.0 and social media and their affordances for sharing tacit knowledge.…”