INTRODUCTION
The organizations will be responsible for the flow of knowledge and its management in relation to its organizational context. It argues that knowledge management is not just computer and information systems; it embodies organizational processes that seek to augment the creative, innovative capacity of human beings as the process is essential for activating a knowledge base culture in modern organizations on how to transform knowledge creating cultures by means of designing the right structure in which information sharing, learning, and knowledge formation should be parts of the organizational norm. ( 1997) The state of the world of business is not only characterized by high level of uncertainty and an inability to predict the future, it has considerably changed in two important ways. First: knowledge work has become fundamentally different in character from physical labor, where intellectual capital counts highly and knowledge workers the people who have the knowledge are critical assets. Second: knowledge work is almost completely immersed in a computing environment (1997). These realities coupled with globalization, rapid technological changes and the need to constantly innovate and adapt the structure to create a knowledge base culture, have forced organizations to recognize the challenges affecting their future survival and strategic positioning.
However, while the issue of knowledge management is more easily applicable in developed countries that possess the required technical know-how and managerial capabilities, it is difficult to apply in third world countries because of different managerial and organizational problems. (1991; 1993). As such, at a time when the development prospects of the developing Arab countries are increasingly linked to their managerial and organizational capabilities and the quality of their intellectual capital and work forces, addressing the issue of knowledge management becomes a critical challenge for organizations to enhance their competitive advantage in the global economy. Yet, it is still difficult to address the issue of knowledge management in Arab organizations because of several predominant managerial and organizational problems embedded in a bureaucratic organizational structure and corporate power culture ( 1980; 1991; 1993).
THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
According to (1989): “Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody, either by becoming grounds for actions or by making an individual capable of different or more effective action”, suggests that knowledge is personal and intangible in nature, whereas information is tangible and available to anyone who cares to seek it out. (1992) do not separate between knowledge and information; rather they imply that information is a form of knowledge. (2001) maintains that all knowledge is tacit and what can be articulated and made tangible outside the human mind is merely information. He adds, however, that knowledge and information affect one another. (1994) argues that knowledge and information are similar in some aspects, but different in others. While information is more factual, knowledge is about beliefs and commitments. He asserts that knowledge can be tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is subconsciously understood and applied, difficult to articulate, developed from direct experience and action and shared through highly interactive conversation and shared experience.
Aside, explicit knowledge is playing an increasingly large role in organizations and is considered to be the most important factor of production in the knowledge economy (1995). (1997) argues that knowledge is part of a hierarchy made up of data, information and knowledge. As people within their knowledge goes a step further; it is that which they come to believe and value based on the meaningful organized information from the human mind through experience and communication with guidance for action and is implicit entity. It is stored in the individual’s brain or encoded in the organizational processes, documents, services and systems. (2003) argues that in the new information economy ‘knowledge’ is not only another resource, it is the most powerful resource, and organizations are more than information processors, they are knowledge creators. (2003) states: knowledge is not impersonal, like money. Knowledge does not reside in a book, a database, or a software program; these contain only information. Knowledge is always embodied in a person; applied by a person; taught and passed on by a person; used or misused by a person.
(1997) for example, argues that the management of intellectual capitals has become a central theme in today’s business literature and a commonly cited source of competitive advantage. Organizations are being advised that to remain competitive, they must efficiently and effectively create, capture and share their organization’s knowledge and expertise and have the ability to bring that knowledge to bear on problems and opportunities for knowledge to be of value it must be focused and current tested and shared. (1997) Knowledge management came about to embody a transition towards treating human systems as key components that engage in continuous assessment of information archived in the technological systems. In this view, human actors do not only implement ‘best practices,” they engage in an active process of assessing the effectiveness of best practices. (1987; 1994; 1996) Knowledge management is not new, but only recently have organization executives begun thinking about deliberate, systematic ways to organize and transfer knowledge.
(1990) emphasize that several driving forces have urged interest in knowledge management. First the rapid advances in information technology have made it possible to share explicit knowledge more quickly and easily, as well as to connect people through networks for the sharing of knowledge. Second the companies’ efforts to become learning organizations, in which managers strive to create a culture and a system for creating new knowledge and for capturing both explicit and tacit knowledge and getting it to the right place at the right time (1996). The concept of ‘knowledge management’ means different things to different people and in different situations. (1973), once considered management as a part of another hierarchy that includes management and leadership: dealing with individuals and peoples’ tasks at the operational level, management deals with groups and priorities at the tactical level and leadership deals with purpose and change at the strategic level.
(1999) argues that knowledge management compliments and enhances other organizational initiatives and asserts that knowledge management provides a new and urgent focus of developing and utilizing the knowledge of an organization to sustain its competitive position. (1996) takes another point of view and differentiates between knowledge management and re-engineering. He argues that while reengineering implies one-shot radical shifts in organizational processes from one stage of mechanization to a more efficient phase of mechanization to achieve maximum increase of efficiency, knowledge management implies continuous and ongoing organic renewal of organizational processes to anticipate future opportunities and threats surrounding the organization. (1987; 1994; 1996) Thus, knowledge management involves the understanding of and commitment to the information technology as organizations should take up a strategic view that considers its organizational context that upholds a synergistic combination of information technology and creative, innovative capacity of human beings, as necessary, for survival in increasingly uncertain environments, in order to understand and enhance the organization’s ability to manage its knowledge, it is important to look into elements in the organizational context that influence knowledge dissemination in the organization. ( 1987; 1994; 1996)
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
While, (1996) argue that knowledge exists within a primary organizational context that influences its management. Meek asserts that organizational performance depends, to a great extent, on the interaction between three primary factors within the organizational context: organizational strategy, organizational design, and individuals’ behavior. This means that managers need to choose the right approach to the right market, create processes to deliver quality products and/or services and motivate people to act in line with organizational objectives. (1996) Moreover, (1985) suggest that organizational processes, structure, and corporate culture are linked and interrelated; knowledge cannot be managed as a ‘thing’ apart from the rest of organizational factors ( 1991; 1991). The understanding of organizational operations should concentrate on the interplay between different organizational factors, he argues that many of the ills of organizations stem from imposing an inappropriate structure on a particular culture, or from expecting a particular culture to thrive in an inappropriate climate.
The extent to which an organization secures a “goodness of fit” between situational factors and structural characteristics will determine the level of organizational performance. For this reason, (1994) cautions that the surplus of technological choices, all of them costly and none of which provides certain solutions, requires careful analysis. The technologies must not be allowed to drive the development of the cultural shifts, but rather human needs must be at the center of such transformation. Knowledge management literature is not precise about how to handle cultural factors. ( 1994) Yet, management scholars have long associated a strong corporate culture with superior long-term performance. The theory is that culture can help create high levels of employees’ loyalty and motivation and provide the company with structure and control without the need for an oppressive bureaucracy. (1999) argues also that before an organization adopts a knowledge management strategy, it must develop a knowledge creating culture, he constructs culture as consisting of beliefs and practices. With respect to the beliefs, it can be assumed that members of an organization have a belief in knowledge, although these beliefs differ across organizational boundaries (1989).
The organization development interventions are directed at the cultural subsystems to allow for the questioning of values and norms under which people operate. It then serves to make organizational culture more receptive to change, facilitating the performance of the organization as a whole. (1991; 1991) Underlying the interests in comparative management and corporate culture is the search for predictable means to regulate organizational control and improved methods for organization management. Top management trusts employees and gives them the freedom to make decisions and act to meet goals. It relies on self-motivating strategies and is based on competence. ( 1991; 1991) It also creates a high-energy environment by using the mission to attract and release its members’ energy in pursuit of the common goals. Finally support culture assumes that people derive satisfaction from relationships, mutual respect, trust and support and that the achievement culture fuses the human will of its members in the service of the organization’s objectives, the support culture evokes human love for the organization and stimulates strong motivation in the service of the group. (1991)
ADAPTING STRUCTURE TO A KNOWLEDGE CREATING CULTURE: A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MODEL
Henceforth, organizational design’s interventions deal with modifying elements of an organization’s structure, including the division of labor, allocation of decision rights, choice of coordinating mechanisms, delineations of organizational boundaries and networks of informal relationships. This means, adopting a new structure that enables organizations to create a new culture and manage its knowledge assets and achieve its strategic goals. (1991; 1991) However, too often organizations attempt to implement knowledge management strategy by simply imposing it with little or no regard for their existing culture and working design. A key notion of sharing knowledge is that however strong the organization’s commitment to knowledge management, context is stronger. (1991; 1991)
Organizations who fail to successfully implement knowledge management do not try to change their culture to fit their knowledge management approach. Rather, they build their knowledge management approach to fit their culture. The core values of organic organizations are that managers care deeply about customers, stakeholders and employees. (1992) They also strongly value people and processes that can create useful change. In addition, in such cultures managers pay close and special attention to customers and initiate change when needed to serve their legitimate interests, even if it entails taking some risks ( 1992).
PEOPLE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS
The dynamism of the previous analysis denotes critical issues for organizations in their quest for progress in a competitive marketplace. This means that an effective knowledge creation and sharing in organizations requires a special organizational structure and corporate culture that value and encourage cooperation and innovation and provide incentives for engaging in those knowledge-based activities and processes. (1992) However, it is necessary to examine the existing situation of certain important factors in the context of organizations that obstruct the development of an effective knowledge management process. It was emphasized that as knowledge management involves the understanding of and commitment to information technology, it requires the creation of an excellent infrastructure and strong corporate culture in which information sharing, learning, and knowledge creation should be part of the organizational norm. (1992) Accordingly, managers and professionals need to recognize that no knowledge management technology or tool will be successful without a fundamental change in corporate culture, one that creates an acceptance and eagerness to do things differently in an ongoing process as such a change requires developing an organic structure that is compatible with achievement and support cultures.
Furthermore, (1996) noted that despite recent interest in organizationally embedded knowledge, little progress has been made “in understanding its anatomy and creation” (). Researchers have argued that since individuals are the prime movers of knowledge creation in an organization ( 1994), knowledge sharing among individuals could assist in knowledge creation at a collective level. (1990) proposed that organizational knowledge is created through communication of individual learning among co-workers. Aside, (1998) postulated that organizational knowledge is created as a result of the combination and exchange of existing knowledge among employees. Thus, given the importance of knowledge sharing, scholars and practitioners would be interested in identifying tools that enhance knowledge sharing within the organization as there examines the role of one such mechanism, organizational reward systems, in influencing knowledge sharing by employees. (1998) Although knowledge management systems have emerged in the last two decades, employee suggestion programs have been present for a much longer time even though these are narrower in focus. Typically, employees receive monetary or non-monetary awards for their valuable suggestions in such programs. (2002)
Researchers have used diverse expressions to define knowledge. ( 2002) Thus, in order to increase the prospects of knowledge sharing by employees, organizations would benefit by knowing how tools such as reward systems can be effective. Knowledge sharing is a key component of knowledge management systems (2001; 2001). Based on the taxonomy of knowledge management systems proposed by Earl, there identifies major mechanisms for individuals to share their knowledge in organizations: contribution of knowledge to organizational databases; sharing knowledge in formal interactions within work units; sharing knowledge in informal interactions among individuals; sharing knowledge within communities of practice, which are voluntary forums of employees around a topic of interest. ( 2001; 2001) There could be several situations in organizations where the nature of knowledge that is being shared is complex; meaning it is difficult to codify or communicate or it takes a long time and great effort for the source to transmit and the recipient to absorb that knowledge. The commitment to the organization and a sense of ownership, fostered in part by employee stock option plans is to be useful in encouraging such knowledge sharing behaviors (2000).
CONCLUSION
In today’s organizations, competitive advantage requires the open sharing of knowledge by organizational members. Indeed, (1997) have identified harnessing “the intelligence and spirit of people at all levels of an organization to continually build and share knowledge” as a top priority for firms wishing to succeed in today’s competitive environment. People from a collectivist culture tend to define themselves in terms of their relationships with others and they are more inclined to give up their individual needs when there is a conflict between their needs and group needs. In conclusion, knowledge management is a complex discipline, and expectations need to be set correctly when claiming its benefits for the organization. Changes in organizations cannot be quick because they involve people’s beliefs and expecting rapid changes becomes unrealistic. Therefore, it is reasonable for organization managers to regard time as an issue and work on it. Organizational knowledge has been recognized as a valuable intangible resource that holds the key to competitive advantage (1996).
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment