Indicative of a relatively new field, there has been much debate in trying to define knowledge management. In the introductory chapter of Dalkir’s book, he references many potential definitions for knowledge management, pulling from such classic knowledge management authors as Davenport and Prusak, Nonaka and Takeuchi, and Wiig. Dalkir also defines common elements found in many, but certainly not all, definitions of knowledge management. Chun Wei Choo, in the forward to Dalkir’s book, offers the definition of “knowledge management as a framework for designing an organization’s goals, structures, and processes so that the organization can use what it knows to learn and to create value for its customers and community” (2005, p. xiii). What is compelling about this definition is that it addresses the synthesizing potential of knowledge management, as well as its valued output. Implied are the people considerations; but what is missing is the technology vehicle often used to accomplish the potential and output to which Choo refers.
Unfortunately, there remains the challenge of developing a commonly accepted definition accepted by academics, practitioners, and the layperson. To develop a definition for knowledge management, considering the people, process, and technology components is a good place to start. Knowledge is captured, codified, shared, and (ideally) created by people for the benefit of people and their organizations. Knowledge management efforts can also live or die on the ability to capture people’s support, both of initial implementation efforts as well as long-term use and support. Knowledge processes can vary from highly structured content management systems with standardized taxonomies and meta-data to the creation of physical spaces that encourage the free flow of knowledge (without imposing any formal structure or process). Technology is indeed an important aspect of knowledge management, for it enables knowledge processes on behalf of the people that knowledge aids. As Davenport and Prusak state, “Technology’s most valuable role in knowledge management is extending the reach and enhancing the speed of knowledge transfer” (2000, p. 125). But technology should not be the only, nor the most important element. As they did in their classic text, Working Knowledge, Davenport and Prusak have continued to “caution against a technology-centered KM approach, but argue that a technology ingredient is a necessary ingredient for successful KM projects” (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Rao, 2005, p. 22).
People, process, and technology—all are critical elements. None can make a knowledge management initiative successful on its own. The best-intentioned and motivated people without supporting processes or technology may have initial success, but they’ll likely not experience long-term success. Well-designed processes without people’s support or the technologies to enable them are destined to languish on paper. And the best technology will suffer from little or no use if it is not woven into the business processes and supported by all levels of people in the organization.
References
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know (Paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)
Rao, M. (Ed.). (2005). Knowledge management tools and techniques. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
- Robin Donnan
Performance Associates, Inc.
