Posted by Riva Gianluca on June 24, 2002 at 10:18:45:

Hi everybody,
after a year and a half reading, researching and chatting about the controversial concept of KM, I think there are five problematic aspects which have been overlooked by first generation KM, imho.
I'd like to get the views of the astute people of this site:

1)The concept of Best Practice. The usual idea of KM was that of Best Practice shared through databases. As a matter of fact, a Best Practice cannot be learned just because it's stored in a Database. Learning is a gradual phenomenon, it requires human efforts and time, and a similar language and background between the teacher and the learner. A best practice is a social practice implemented by certain people in a certain organization in a certain environment. That is, a Best Practice is interaction between human/organizational/environmental elements, and this interaction is situated and idiosincratic, it cannot be transferred by Databases.

2)The epistemological issues: some elements of the so-called tacit knowledge are not codifiable through IT devices. Think for istance about the embodied knowledge of the biker, they cannot explain how they bike, and it's not useful to do that from an individual point of view, as they can already bike effectively. Or think to the coordination of a group. In the number of February of the Academy of Management Journal there's the example of the NBA basketball teams, they speak about "collective tacit knowledge" speaking about the very fact the team knows how the other players play, the position they keep in the field, their favourite movements and so on. This is an important kind of tacit knowledge that is not codifiable by IT, you need social interaction and practice with the same people for a certain time to develop it.

3)Technogical determinism: it's not true that a certain technology dictates certain organizational characteristics. The relationship is circular: social contexts/environments/organizations can adapt/transform/change the way a technology is used and interpreted depending on social/individual aspirations/desires/interests. For istance, if you have a look at many discussion forums, you can find enormous differences in terms of freedom, creative abrasion and control...Technology is the same, social utilization, interpretation and usage very different...

4)The concept of knowledge worker is ambiguous. As a matter of fact is often a matter of organizational strategy (for istance empowerment)rather than intrinsic qualities of people. People are knowledge workers if a firm allows them to think, rather than building techno-elites that can generate resistance and exclusionary mechanisms

5)The specific strategy and competitive advantage of a firm is often overlooked/neglected proposing kind of universal, one-size-fits-all tools, while we should analize if a firm bases its competitive advantage on codifiable/uncodifiable sources of tacit knowledge. In the latter case, IT is useless and we should look into the so-called "Personalization Strategy".

Kind Regards

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Some pitfalls of first generation KM after a year researching imho Akhil Shahani 03:16:44 06/26/02 (4)
  • Thanks!!! Riva Gianluca 09:37:44 06/27/02 (3)
    • Goodwill, Collaboration, and Necessary Maintenance Issues BK Ghosh 12:27:05 06/28/02 (1)
      • Re: Goodwill, Collaboration, and Necessary Maintenance Issues Riva Gianluca 06:22:32 07/02/02 (0)
    • Fair Use of Intellectual Property Is Implicitly 'Covered' BK Ghosh 09:45:20 06/27/02 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: