Posted by BK Ghosh on December 31, 2002 at 14:42:50:

In Reply to: Unhuman KM posted by Lauri Gröhn on December 31, 2002 at 13:50:40:

"Business environments characterized by rapid and radical change put premium on continuous business model innovation to deliver novel, sustainable and competitively viable customer value propositions. Hence, the design of KMS should ensure that adaptation and innovation of business performance outcomes occurs in alignment with changing dynamics of the business environment. This would prevent the failure of KMS caused by the gaps between the value these enterprises create and the value demanded by changing market conditions, consumer preferences, competitive offerings, and, changing business models, and, industry structures. In addition the design of KMS must give due consideration to moderating and intervening behavioral and sociological variables such as attention, motivation, commitment, creativity, and, innovation discussed in Model 2 to ensure that computational inputs [including enabling technologies] and organizational inputs result in effective business performance. This would prevent the failure of KMS caused by the gaps between the data, information technology, best practices, etc., and the business performance outcomes. As explained earlier, conceiving multiple future trajectories of the information technology and human inputs embedded in the KMS can diminish the risk of rapid obsolescence of such systems as they can be readily adapted to innovative business value propositions and customer value propositions. The overriding challenge for the organizations is to effectively address the dialectic of knowledge harvesting and knowledge creation. Enablers and constraints of KMS were enumerated in the form of seven challenges related to business and technology strategy, organizational control, information sharing culture, knowledge representation, organization structure, managerial command and control, and, economic returns."

"The architects of next generation KMS cannot afford to treat strategic sustainability of business models, related organizational cultural challenges, and, dependence of these architectures on true integrated information flows as afterthoughts. To successfully manage these challenges, KMS designers must take a holistic approach to designing inter- and intra-organizational "systems" with due consideration not only for the technological design, but also for the design of strategic sustainability of these systems. This approach is expected to provide the needed balance of integration and flexibility required for next generation KMS architectures. Where 'disruptive technologies' alone fell short of expectations, the same technologies could provide the winning recipes for success when coupled with 'disruptive customer value propositions'. Organizational competence and success ultimately depends upon KMS architectures that can enable agile and adaptive enterprises skilled in creating innovative business models driven by unique, interesting, and competitive customer value propositions."

In the final conclusion section of the article (posted above), all the above references highlighted in bold relate to sociological and behavioral variables.

If you are interested in the "depth" of sociological and behavioral variables, you may like to read up the articles listed in the references that focus more on those issues:

Malhotra, Y. and Kirsch, L.J. (1996). Personal Construct Analysis of Self-Control in IS Adoption: Empirical Evidence from Comparative Case Studies of IS Users & IS Champions. Proceedings of the First INFORMS Conference on Information Systems and Technology, 105-114.

Malhotra, Y.(1997). Knowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations. Proceedings of the Americas Conference in Information Systems, 293-295.
[Available online at www.kmbook.com ]

Malhotra, Y. (1998). Role of Social Influence, Self Determination and Quality of Use in Information Technology Acceptance and Utilization: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical Field Study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.

Malhotra, Y. (1999). Bringing the Adopter Back Into the Adoption Process: A Personal Construction Framework of Information Technology Adoption. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10, 1, 79-104.

Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D.F.(1999). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6-19.

Malhotra, Y.(2001). Expert Systems for Knowledge Management: Crossing the Chasm Between Information Processing and Sense Making. Expert Systems With Applications, 20,1, 7-16.

Malhotra, Y. (2002b). Is Knowledge Management Really an Oxymoron? Unraveling the Role of Organizational Controls in Knowledge Management. In White, D. (Ed.), Knowledge Mapping and Management. Hershey, PA Idea Group Publishing, 1-13.

Malhotra, Y.(in press). Information Ecology and Knowledge Management: Toward Knowledge Ecology for Hyperturbulent Organizational Environments. In Kiel, D.L. (Ed.), UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Paris, France: EOLSS Publishers.

and the most recent article released this week:

Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D.F.(2003). Role of Commitment and Motivation in Knowledge Management Systems Implementation: Theory, Conceptualization, and Measurement of Antecedents of Success. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: