Search results

Knowledge management (KM) as a field has been characterized by great confusion about its conceptual foundations and scope, much to the detriment of assessments of its impact and track record. The purpose of this paper is to contribute toward defining the scope of KM and ending the confusion, by presenting a conceptual framework and set of criteria for evaluating whether claimed KM interventions are bona fide instances of it or are interventions of another sort.

Methods used include conceptual evaluation and critique of a variety of types of “KM interventions” and presentation of a detailed analysis of an unambiguous case (The Partners HealthCare case) where KM has been successful.

The critical analysis indicates that the use of tools and methods associated with KM does not imply that interventions using them are KM interventions, and most “KM projects” are probably interventions of other types. The analysis also illustrates a pattern of intervention that can serve as the basis of a long‐term systematic strategy for implementing KM.

This is the first detailed examination of whether KM is really being done by those who claim to be doing it. It should be of value to all those who think about the scope of organizational learning and KM, and who care about unbiased assessments of its performance.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of some guidelines to evaluate new knowledge management (KM) models and frameworks, by means of the presentation and analysis of The New Knowledge Management, a model developed by the North‐American consultants Joseph M. Firestone and Mark W. McElroy, and the associated knowledge life cycle.

This is an analysis that encompasses epistemological issues and KM theory, intending to review some fundamental concepts and make comparisons to preeminent works. The KM framework examined is grounded on the philosopher Popper's ideas and has in its core the process of knowledge claim validation, which distinguishes it from other information‐oriented approaches. Based on the guidelines pointed, some of the aspects of the KM model exposed are outlined and criticized, among them the difficulty of establishing a meta‐theory that could support the judgment of diverse knowledge claims.

The guidelines found useful to analyze KM models are: the observance of the adopted scope, the concern over the fundamental concepts, the extension of the employed interdisciplinary procedures, the authors' intentions and background, and the possible comparisons and analogies to concepts and theories of related fields.

Many KM solutions and practices are implemented in the organizations without a solid theoretic background. The guidelines can help to choose from the myriad KM models and frameworks that show up uninterruptedly.

The paper focuses on providing methodological means to analyze and evaluate new KM models, not on merely discussing one of them.

Reviews the scope, purpose and meaning of knowledge management (KM) and uses a case study to demonstrate the clear, tangible benefits a well researched and delivered KM strategy can deliver.

This briefing is prepared by two authors who present their comments on the importance of fully understanding the terms of KM before implementing a KM strategy.

Despite much talk about KM to highlight competitive advantage, few organizations realize the true definition of this quality process. Authors Joseph M. Firestone and Mark W. McElroy investigate KM and argue that only a structured strategy, with tightly controlled criteria and clear definitions of knowledge and information, will constitute true KM.

Provides clear guidance as to the importance of a clearly‐defined KM strategy.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to‐digest format.

To many in the fields of organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM), the relationship between the two is something of a small mystery. The authors are practitioners coming from the KM side, who in the course of their work developed a process framework to delimit the scope of KM. They believe this framework also provides a context for viewing OL and for relating it to both social knowledge processing and KM

The purpose of this paper is to present a process for managing project problem‐solving patterns. It focuses on shifting the emphasis of project teams toward a more collaborative and knowledge‐based style of dealing with challenges to project performance. The methods proposed in this paper encourage project managers to integrate processes for becoming more agile by tapping into lesson learned and knowledge gained to create higher quality solutions to problems.

This paper proposes a conceptual framework for recognizing problem‐solving patterns and transforming problem solving from an individual passive event to a more open, agile active, systemic process. Several actual case examples are provided to illustrate applications.

The paper examines how taking a more open approach to problem solving in projects leads to better solutions. The proposed method and lessons from actual cases offer support to these proposals.

The proposed models in this paper originate from the conclusions and observations drawn by the authors over many years of experience. However, they are not the product of a systematic research effort. This paper is intended to provide a new lens for project managers to view projects. It does not purport to declare findings of any research or analyze any sort of research.

The conceptual framework provided in this paper is a practical one derived from the practices used in leading companies. The paper provides practical guidelines to aid project managers in recognizing and managing problem‐solving patterns to create better solutions to problems.

Modern society is plagued by the effects of ineffective problem‐solving initiatives in business, government, and not‐for‐profit organizations. Flawed proposed solutions exact a toll on organizations, their members, and the constituents they serve. This paper proposes a way of improving the quality of problem‐solving processes that may benefit a broad scale of people.

The concept of a problem‐solving pattern and a typology of problem‐solving patterns presented in this paper, provide project managers with a new way of conceiving of how problem solving can be used to improve project performance and adaptability.

This paper proposes that knowledge management is a system that integrates people, process and technology for sustainable results by increasing performance through learning. Definitions of knowledge, knowledge management and performance serve as a foundation.

The model for the knowledge era proposed in this paper is that sustained results require learning to be integrated in every activity, and that event‐based training does not, by definition, result in integrated learning. As an equation, it is a multiplicative function: Results = Performance × Learning. In this model, if learning is eliminated over time, results will become zero. Alternatively, if direct effort is put into creating conditions for learning, results can increase exponentially, creating competitive advantage.

The paper concludes that knowledge management is not done. It proposes that for sustainable performance it is not sufficient to measure economic results. Performance seen through the lens of the triple bottom line (profit, people, and planet) will require significant investment in learning to create intellectual capital.

Theory is demonstrated in practice, describing a successful large‐scale/ high‐impact change initiative at Unilever that did contribute to Unilever's goals and results.

To examine the critical roles of leadership in higher education and to define how such roles enable an environment that embraces the demands of a knowledge‐based organization.

Through interviews with executive leadership in several higher education institutions, the ontology of knowledge management was established and the methods by which knowledge gaps were resolved were explored. The question of how leadership behaviors, policies, and programs enable or inhibit knowledge‐processing activities was analyzed.

Leadership influence in six key areas emerged as significant in the study: environment manager, network manager, policy manager, crisis manager, knowledge gap manager, and future leader preparation. The authors confirmed that the leader has tremendous control over the knowledge‐processing environment and the role of leadership has broader influence than the resolution of knowledge gaps.

By understanding leadership roles in knowledge management, organizations and their leaders can enhance the learning capacity of the organization.

To develop a biological approach to the analysis of learning organisations based on complexity theory, autopoiesis, and evolutionary epistemology.

This paper synthesises ideas from disciplines ranging from physics, epistemology and philosophy of science to military affairs, to sketch a scientific framework in which the autopoietic status of any kind of complex system can be evaluated. The autopoietic framework also presents generic concepts of memory, learning and knowledge. The autopoietic status of human organisations is tested in relation to this framework, and some of the direct implications regarding organisational learning and adaptation are highlighted.

A new definition of autopoiesis adding sustainability to key requirements is developed. Theoretical ideas of Maturana and Varela, Popper, Pattee, Boyd, and Gould are synthesised and applied to large‐scale organisations to reveal their emergent, autopoietic, evolutionary (i.e. biological), and learning nature.

Many current studies and practices in knowledge management are based on only limited views of what constitutes knowledge in the organisation and have not been conducted within any visible framework for understanding the organisation's survival imperatives, or how the knowledge and processes being studied relate to the organisation's overall strategic aims. The framework presented here will lead towards the development of a sounder theoretical basis for studying knowledge and learning in organisations.

This is a comment for all those writers who claim that organizations cannot learn. The author consistently rejects this notion. Rather the author contends that organizations can learn, in at least two different ways.

The author reviews some of the common arguments against organizational learning, and tries to answer the opponents.

The main argument against the critics is that they are too busy to look for evidence that organizations are not like individuals and that organizations therefore cannot learn. Instead, the author argues that it is a question of level of analysis.

The author also suggests that theories as well as knowledge in general are metaphoric, implying that organizations as such of course are able to learn.