The four key enablers of knowledge management include infrastructure, culture, measures, and technology. Culture relates to organizational norms. Infrastructure relates to the “roles, organizational structures, and skills from which individual [KM] projects can benefit” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 155). Measures relate to being able to provide proof of the benefit of a knowledge management initiative. (This can include qualitative evidence gathered from success stories, as well as quantitative evidence such as an increase in an organizations’ intellectual capital in the form of patents, process, plans, new products, etc.) In addition, technology relates to the enabling platform upon which many KM initiatives are built.
In a comparison of different authors’ critical success factors for knowledge management, technology infrastructure and willingness to share are the top two items listed (Alazmi & Zairi, 2003). This underlines the importance of two of the four KM enablers: culture and technology.
Culture relates to such knowledge enabling (or inhibiting) factors as willingness to share, support for learning from mistakes, encouragement to share knowledge, allowing time for reflection, and recognition for new knowledge created (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Kline & Saunders, 1993). McDermott (1999) argues that “the difficulty in most knowledge management effort lies in changing organizational culture and people's work habits. It lies in getting people to take the time to articulate and share the really good stuff. If a group of people don't already share knowledge, don't already have plenty of contact, don't already understand what insights and information will be useful to each other, information technology is not likely to create it" (p. 104).
In considering technology’s role in KM, Davenport & Prusak (1998) argue that “technology’s most valuable role in knowledge management is extending the reach and enhancing the speed of knowledge transfer” (p. 125). At the same time, they warn to not place too much emphasis on technology, citing “an excessive focus on technology [as] the most common pitfall in knowledge management” (p. 173). This sentiment is echoed by Fahey & Prusak (1998) who caution, “although IT is a wonderful facilitator of data and information transmission and distribution, it can never substitute for the rich interactivity, communication, and learning that is inherent in dialogue. Knowledge is primarily a function and consequence of the meeting and interaction of minds. Human intervention remains the only source of knowledge generation" (p. 273).
References:
Alazmi, M., & Zairi, M. (2003). Knowledge management critical success factors. Total Quality Management, 14(2), 199-204.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Fahey, L. & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.
Kline, P. & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City, UT: Great River Books.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review, 41(4), 103-117.
- Robin
Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com
