Knowledge management essay范文
07-27, 2015
由于市场全球化以及内部市场的当前处境，知识管理对组织发展的成功与否越来越重要。知识管理可与策略优势相提并论，也可以被视为是简化业务和提高生产效率的一种手段。知识管理、知识共享和知识网络这三者对支持最佳实践和通过各种方法研发创新理念来说是非常重要的。各种各样商业学科的有关论据说明了有效的沟通和知识管理是构成复杂业务功能的关键元素,如流程集成(Fugate et al,2009 p 274),知识管理的第一阶段必须获取相关知识。这需要根据一个企业的管理水平来定义知识,具体地说,知识就是指业务本身。Fugate et al(2009 p 248)认为,知识管理不仅是一个双向沟通的过程,还涉及知识的采集、分析、共享，而后运用于商业环境和活动。达到知识共享是这个过程的一个重要组成部分(Fugate et al, 2009 p 248)。
Knowledge management is of increasing importance to organisational success because of the current state of global and internal markets. Knowledge management can be related to strategic advantage and can be seen as a means of streamlining business and improving productivity and efficiency. Knowledge management and knowledge sharing is important for supporting best practice and developing successful innovation through various means, including knowledge networking. While evidence from a variety of business disciplines illustrates the fact that effective communication and knowledge management constitute critical elements of complex business functions, such as process integration (Fugate et al, 2009 p 274), the first stage of knowledge management must be knowledge capture. This requires the management level of an organisation to define knowledge, and specifically, knowledge in relation to the business itself. Fugate et al (2009 p 248) suggests that not only is knowledge management a two way communication process, but this involves behaviours of capturing, analyzing, sharing and acting on information about the business environment and activities. Reaching a shared interpretation of knowledge is an important part of this process (Fugate et al, 2009 p 248).
Thus, the initial stage of identifying ways to capture and share this important student knowledge is to define and identify the knowledge itself. The nature of the knowledge is defined by the nature of the organisation, and by it culture (Sackmann and Fiesl, 2007 p 142). Thus, internal definitions of the kind of knowledge to be shared are important, and in this case it is likely to be 'specialist' experiential knowledge which allows the second and third year students to communicate their experiences of the course materials to their junior peers. However, from the managerial perspective, simply asking them to share their experiences would not be appropriate because multiple factors might affect the nature of the knowledge imparted and the means by which it is shared. There is an emotional aspect to employee interactions (Sackmann and Fiesl, 2007 p 144). For this reason, it is important that those instigating this process, acting as 'managers', not only define exactly what knowledge is to be shared, but also make use of this emotional dimension of knowledge. This allows them to have an impact upon those who are to be the recipients of the process of knowledge sharing. Thus, it is possible to see how even this one aspect of knowledge management relates to classical definitions of knowledge: something tangible - an idea or information - is processed as knowledge, within a specific context, for a specific purpose. However, it is also possible to view this as a process of knowledge sharing that enhances and simultaneously makes use of networks of communication and practice within the extended 'workforce' of a typical three-tiered degree programme.#p#分页标题#e#
It is also important to consider other aspects of the nature of the knowledge being transferred, and the real purposes underlying this process. For example, for the 'managers' in this situation, this process of knowledge may be a way of reinforcing cultural identity and socialising first year students into the expected ways of thinking and behaving. But this process is maximising on emotionally based, cognitive and experience based knowledge transfer (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007 p 144). Therefore, the nature of the knowledge being transferred must take into account all of these domains and ensure that knowledge transfer is appropriate to the goals of the organisation, not merely defined by perceptions and experiences of its members.
An example of this would be the transfer of procedural processes within a manufacturing environment, where sequences of action are imparted from an experienced to a junior employee. The more experienced employee might impart a set sequence of actions, but at the same time they may pass on other 'knowledge', such as their experiences if they have deviated from this set of sequences (in the form of stories). Equally they may impart background information about other links in the manufacturing chain, before and after their particular station, and how this sequence of actions fits in with the whole. However, if this knowledge transfer process also includes the employee's opinion that this is not the best way of achieving the manufacturing process. Negative comments could also be about other workers and managers, undermining morale or relationships within the workforce, then the process of knowledge transfer may not achieve all organisational goals, which extend beyond simple efficacy of performance, but more complex factors which help to secure employee motivation and loyalty.
Therefore, the nature of the knowledge being transferred must be considered. It might be that first, the 'management' (i.e. the lecturers) would identify a way by which individual students from the second and third years could be singled out and recruited to a peer support programme. In some places this is called peer assisted learning, and such individuals would then be trained, and knowledge transfer activities would be designed within set parameters. This way it would be possible to focus knowledge transfer activities fully in line with the requirements of the organisation, including the perpetuation of its culture and ethos, not just its function and the means to achieve its goals. Sackmann and Friesl (2007 p 144) argue that knowledge transfer is a fully grounded experience based on an individual; the idiosyncratic knowledge they have gained over years at work; the stock of accumulated knowledge and skills gained through work; and through their own socialisation into the workplace culture. Yet this is not necessarily the case with these students who have a more limited experience, although theirs is one that's specific and very relevant to their first year peers.#p#分页标题#e#
The processes of knowledge transfer might well be best designed to take advantage of this peer relationship and the mutual relevance and interest, along with a different type of trust that emerges from this particular situation. Chen and Huang (2007 p 113) state that managers should pay attention to the importance of social interaction in the link of organizational climate, organisational structure, and knowledge management and transfer. Maximising on the scope of these relationships is obviously an important feature of this knowledge transfer process, and would perhaps make it more efficient as well. This relates to motivation, and it may very well be the case that these students would be more motivated to learn from their peers if there is a system of incentives and support which would encourage these students from different years to engage in these relationships, build up collaborative links and engage in knowledge transfer in formal and informal ways (Chen and Huang, 2007 p 113). Chen and Huang (2007 p 113) also recommend that firms should design and perpetuate appropriate organizational contexts to facilitate this social interaction and knowledge management within a cooperative atmosphere. Therefore, generating social spaces or occasions which may be semi-formal in order to foster such relationships might be effective. One example of this, from the world of academia can be found in the idea of team away days, wherein all day-to-day business is left behind, and people engage in active knowledge sharing, formal transmission of information, and informal networking and discussion. This concept could help to foster a better relationship amongst workers, or in our case students, and could lead to relationships outside of the work place being built. This further aids the knowledge transfer process and builds trust amongst peers.
Therefore, one would argue that it might be useful to instigate student 'away days' when all three years mix together in a semi formal manner with some incentives, such as food and drinks provided, and the option for additional social activities. It would be possible to 'staff' such an away day with trained individuals from the second and third year who have a specific remit to achieve certain knowledge transfer goals. However, Cummings (2004 p 360) shows that structurally diverse groups can enhance knowledge sharing, and therefore, it is important to have multiple sources of information, multiple 'knowledge sharers' at this event. It might be worth investigating if it is also possible to consider other people involved in these later modules, such as lecturers, within this away day, but this might not support the peer transfer process. Lecturers could make students feel uncomfortable and create an awkward environment which would subsequently restrict the knowledge transfer process.
However, it would need more than one away day to foster this process of knowledge transfer, and it might be better to consider this process as occurring over time, much as knowledge transfer of the most complex sort tends to occur within business and organisational contexts (Lee and Kim, 2001 p 299). The knowledge and the process of transfer must be purposeful, situated and appropriate to the information, seeking and the developmental needs of both the first year students, and the development needs of the second year students (as both need some kind of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from this process). In addition, of course, they must be appropriate to the goals of the institution and must fit well with what the institution wish to be passed on concerning the learning experiences available in the second and third years of the programme. Lee and Kim (2001 p 301) describe a stage model of knowledge transfer in which four stages occur: initiation, propagation, integration, and networking. One would argue that these stages are sequential and hierarchical (2001 p 301), and this model is useful because it mimics both the organisational structure and the overt processes of learning that the students are engaged with. However, the organisation would need to be prepared to engage in some significant reorientation towards this kind of supported knowledge management, which diverges from models of education in which teachers impart information to students. This is because nowadays students are imparting information to each other, and this may challenge traditional hierarchical structures and the status of those who hold the power within the organization. All of these stages could challenge academic hegemony and dominance of the learning processes of students. This mimics Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995 p 87) five phase model where, in knowledge transfer, individuals share tacit knowledge, go through a process of creating concepts, and then a process of justifying concepts. This leads to the construction of an archetype, which is described as how "the justified concept is converted into something tangible or concrete, an archetype" (Nonaka and Takeuchi, p87), ending with cross-levelling of knowledge. This can also be related to what Weick (1979 p 206) relates as schemas; script and systems which define and affect knowledge transfer units and processes.#p#分页标题#e#
Certainly it is possible to see how this would happen within the aforementioned peer knowledge transfer, as the more senior students would conceptualise the second and third year modules themselves by building archetypes. It might be important to ensure that these archetypes have been previously developed and refined prior to the initiation of the knowledge transfer process, i.e. within the training period. One would argue that the process of knowledge sharing would then become self-perpetuation, because it would result in the five enabling conditions described by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995): organisational intention (which would be reshaped by the initiation of this type of knowledge transfer process); autonomy, because the students would become self-motivating, more inquisitive, and more empowered to experiment with new ideas; fluctuation and creative chaos, where set routines are broken down by this new 'power' of peer learning and sharing' information redundancy, where in a creative process students learn in new and unpredictable ways through this (albeit formally instigated) less formal networking'; and requisite variety, whereby the complexity of these relationships becomes more and more related to, and relevant to, the kinds of work experiences in real organisational contexts that students will experience.
An effective way of engendering knowledge transfer might also include making use of formalised and less formalised narratives which make information and knowledge more emotive and relevant to students (Connell et al, 2004 p 184). Universities are very much learning organisations, because they are always influenced by new information brought to light by research and by academic practice and pedagogy. However, challenges to this process would include resistance from staff, as discussed above, particularly in response to the challenge to their power, authority and control. There are also the challenges involved in the development of the student's skills, enabling them to effectively communicate knowledge, especially tacit knowledge (Szulanski, 1996).To overcome the staff resistance, it would be useful to connect the organisational context, strategy, aims and vision with the potential for this knowledge transfer process to increase or improve organisational effectiveness and competitive advantage (Zheng et al, 2009 p 1).
Other challenges might relate to a lack of resources to train individuals in this kind of peer assisted learning, and a lack of time and other resources to commit to staged set contact or away days. Certainly a lack of attendance at such away days would seriously limit the effectiveness of this type of knowledge transfer. A way to overcome this might be to make optimal use of information and communications technologies (Nonaka et al, 2006 p 1179), especially email, text messaging and other types of communications interfaces, such as instant messaging and online social networking sites, as a means of allowing students to provide peer support and information sharing in their own way, and in ways which are more accessible to all students (Barak and Rafaeli, 2004 p 84; Coakes et al, 2008 p 12; Alavi and Leidner, 2001 p 107). An example of this might be the setting up of a Facebook group wherein individuals provide information about the second and third year modules and log in regularly to contribute to discussions, and answer questions or respond to comments from all of their peers. It might also be possible to use specific web based systems, such as QSIA as described by Rafaeli et al (2004 p 273), which is an online environment for learning, assessing and knowledge sharing in student communities. This would contribute to the development of the kinds of knowledge schemas and structures described above. Effective leadership would be an important aspect of all of these activities, both virtual and real time (Srivastava et al, 2006 p 1239). Some degree of control over the IT environments would also need to be exercised (Ravishankar and Pan, 2008 p 221).#p#分页标题#e#
However, this does not address the need to develop behavioural intentions in students to engage in this process of knowledge transfer, as those who transmit knowledge and those who receive it (King and Marks, 2008 p 131). Thus, it could be argued that low sense of efficacy would need to be bolstered by identifying the benefits implicit in the knowledge sharing processes for all those involved, to ensure they are motivated to engage, and also by identifying obstructive attitudes and taking steps to address these (Ryu et al, 2003 p 113). This could be supported by exploiting the social trust of student peer status, and exploiting the fact that social networks and shared goals can contribute to the volition to share knowledge (Chow and Chan, 2008 p 458; Yang and Farn, 2009 p 210).
Therefore, multiple approaches to engendering knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer would be needed in this situation; addressing challenges which are typical of this kind of process yet specific to the unique situation as well. Optimising on available knowledge is important, and making use of ICTs would be useful, but it is also important that there is ongoing managerial control and monitoring to ensure the 'knowledge' being shared is appropriate and achieves the goals of the organisation.
Knowledge management is of increasing importance to organisational success because of the current state of global and internal markets. Knowledge management can be related to strategic advantage and can be seen as a means of streamlining business and improving productivity and efficiency. Knowledge management and knowledge sharing is important for supporting best practice and developing successful innovation through various means, including knowledge networking. While evidence from a variety of business disciplines illustrates the fact that effective communication and knowledge management constitute critical elements of complex business functions, such as process integration (Fugate et al, 2009 p 274), the first stage of knowledge management must be knowledge capture. This requires the management level of an organisation to define knowledge, and specifically, knowledge in relation to the business itself. Fugate et al (2009 p 248) suggests that not only is knowledge management a two way communication process, but this involves behaviours of capturing, analyzing, sharing and acting on information about the business environment and activities. Reaching a shared interpretation of knowledge is an important part of this process (Fugate et al, 2009 p 248).
Thus, the initial stage of identifying ways to capture and share this important student knowledge is to define and identify the knowledge itself. The nature of the knowledge is defined by the nature of the organisation, and by it culture (Sackmann and Fiesl, 2007 p 142). Thus, internal definitions of the kind of knowledge to be shared are important, and in this case it is likely to be 'specialist' experiential knowledge which allows the second and third year students to communicate their experiences of the course materials to their junior peers. However, from the managerial perspective, simply asking them to share their experiences would not be appropriate because multiple factors might affect the nature of the knowledge imparted and the means by which it is shared. There is an emotional aspect to employee interactions (Sackmann and Fiesl, 2007 p 144). For this reason, it is important that those instigating this process, acting as 'managers', not only define exactly what knowledge is to be shared, but also make use of this emotional dimension of knowledge. This allows them to have an impact upon those who are to be the recipients of the process of knowledge sharing. Thus, it is possible to see how even this one aspect of knowledge management relates to classical definitions of knowledge: something tangible - an idea or information - is processed as knowledge, within a specific context, for a specific purpose. However, it is also possible to view this as a process of knowledge sharing that enhances and simultaneously makes use of networks of communication and practice within the extended 'workforce' of a typical three-tiered degree programme.#p#分页标题#e#
It is also important to consider other aspects of the nature of the knowledge being transferred, and the real purposes underlying this process. For example, for the 'managers' in this situation, this process of knowledge may be a way of reinforcing cultural identity and socialising first year students into the expected ways of thinking and behaving. But this process is maximising on emotionally based, cognitive and experience based knowledge transfer (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007 p 144). Therefore, the nature of the knowledge being transferred must take into account all of these domains and ensure that knowledge transfer is appropriate to the goals of the organisation, not merely defined by perceptions and experiences of its members.
An example of this would be the transfer of procedural processes within a manufacturing environment, where sequences of action are imparted from an experienced to a junior employee. The more experienced employee might impart a set sequence of actions, but at the same time they may pass on other 'knowledge', such as their experiences if they have deviated from this set of sequences (in the form of stories). Equally they may impart background information about other links in the manufacturing chain, before and after their particular station, and how this sequence of actions fits in with the whole. However, if this knowledge transfer process also includes the employee's opinion that this is not the best way of achieving the manufacturing process. Negative comments could also be about other workers and managers, undermining morale or relationships within the workforce, then the process of knowledge transfer may not achieve all organisational goals, which extend beyond simple efficacy of performance, but more complex factors which help to secure employee motivation and loyalty.
Therefore, the nature of the knowledge being transferred must be considered. It might be that first, the 'management' (i.e. the lecturers) would identify a way by which individual students from the second and third years could be singled out and recruited to a peer support programme. In some places this is called peer assisted learning, and such individuals would then be trained, and knowledge transfer activities would be designed within set parameters. This way it would be possible to focus knowledge transfer activities fully in line with the requirements of the organisation, including the perpetuation of its culture and ethos, not just its function and the means to achieve its goals. Sackmann and Friesl (2007 p 144) argue that knowledge transfer is a fully grounded experience based on an individual; the idiosyncratic knowledge they have gained over years at work; the stock of accumulated knowledge and skills gained through work; and through their own socialisation into the workplace culture. Yet this is not necessarily the case with these students who have a more limited experience, although theirs is one that's specific and very relevant to their first year peers.#p#分页标题#e#
The processes of knowledge transfer might well be best designed to take advantage of this peer relationship and the mutual relevance and interest, along with a different type of trust that emerges from this particular situation. Chen and Huang (2007 p 113) state that managers should pay attention to the importance of social interaction in the link of organizational climate, organisational structure, and knowledge management and transfer. Maximising on the scope of these relationships is obviously an important feature of this knowledge transfer process, and would perhaps make it more efficient as well. This relates to motivation, and it may very well be the case that these students would be more motivated to learn from their peers if there is a system of incentives and support which would encourage these students from different years to engage in these relationships, build up collaborative links and engage in knowledge transfer in formal and informal ways (Chen and Huang, 2007 p 113). Chen and Huang (2007 p 113) also recommend that firms should design and perpetuate appropriate organizational contexts to facilitate this social interaction and knowledge management within a cooperative atmosphere. Therefore, generating social spaces or occasions which may be semi-formal in order to foster such relationships might be effective. One example of this, from the world of academia can be found in the idea of team away days, wherein all day-to-day business is left behind, and people engage in active knowledge sharing, formal transmission of information, and informal networking and discussion. This concept could help to foster a better relationship amongst workers, or in our case students, and could lead to relationships outside of the work place being built. This further aids the knowledge transfer process and builds trust amongst peers.
Therefore, one would argue that it might be useful to instigate student 'away days' when all three years mix together in a semi formal manner with some incentives, such as food and drinks provided, and the option for additional social activities. It would be possible to 'staff' such an away day with trained individuals from the second and third year who have a specific remit to achieve certain knowledge transfer goals. However, Cummings (2004 p 360) shows that structurally diverse groups can enhance knowledge sharing, and therefore, it is important to have multiple sources of information, multiple 'knowledge sharers' at this event. It might be worth investigating if it is also possible to consider other people involved in these later modules, such as lecturers, within this away day, but this might not support the peer transfer process. Lecturers could make students feel uncomfortable and create an awkward environment which would subsequently restrict the knowledge transfer process.
However, it would need more than one away day to foster this process of knowledge transfer, and it might be better to consider this process as occurring over time, much as knowledge transfer of the most complex sort tends to occur within business and organisational contexts (Lee and Kim, 2001 p 299). The knowledge and the process of transfer must be purposeful, situated and appropriate to the information, seeking and the developmental needs of both the first year students, and the development needs of the second year students (as both need some kind of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from this process). In addition, of course, they must be appropriate to the goals of the institution and must fit well with what the institution wish to be passed on concerning the learning experiences available in the second and third years of the programme. Lee and Kim (2001 p 301) describe a stage model of knowledge transfer in which four stages occur: initiation, propagation, integration, and networking. One would argue that these stages are sequential and hierarchical (2001 p 301), and this model is useful because it mimics both the organisational structure and the overt processes of learning that the students are engaged with. However, the organisation would need to be prepared to engage in some significant reorientation towards this kind of supported knowledge management, which diverges from models of education in which teachers impart information to students. This is because nowadays students are imparting information to each other, and this may challenge traditional hierarchical structures and the status of those who hold the power within the organization. All of these stages could challenge academic hegemony and dominance of the learning processes of students. This mimics Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1995 p 87) five phase model where, in knowledge transfer, individuals share tacit knowledge, go through a process of creating concepts, and then a process of justifying concepts. This leads to the construction of an archetype, which is described as how "the justified concept is converted into something tangible or concrete, an archetype" (Nonaka and Takeuchi, p87), ending with cross-levelling of knowledge. This can also be related to what Weick (1979 p 206) relates as schemas; script and systems which define and affect knowledge transfer units and processes.#p#分页标题#e#
Certainly it is possible to see how this would happen within the aforementioned peer knowledge transfer, as the more senior students would conceptualise the second and third year modules themselves by building archetypes. It might be important to ensure that these archetypes have been previously developed and refined prior to the initiation of the knowledge transfer process, i.e. within the training period. One would argue that the process of knowledge sharing would then become self-perpetuation, because it would result in the five enabling conditions described by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995): organisational intention (which would be reshaped by the initiation of this type of knowledge transfer process); autonomy, because the students would become self-motivating, more inquisitive, and more empowered to experiment with new ideas; fluctuation and creative chaos, where set routines are broken down by this new 'power' of peer learning and sharing' information redundancy, where in a creative process students learn in new and unpredictable ways through this (albeit formally instigated) less formal networking'; and requisite variety, whereby the complexity of these relationships becomes more and more related to, and relevant to, the kinds of work experiences in real organisational contexts that students will experience.
An effective way of engendering knowledge transfer might also include making use of formalised and less formalised narratives which make information and knowledge more emotive and relevant to students (Connell et al, 2004 p 184). Universities are very much learning organisations, because they are always influenced by new information brought to light by research and by academic practice and pedagogy. However, challenges to this process would include resistance from staff, as discussed above, particularly in response to the challenge to their power, authority and control. There are also the challenges involved in the development of the student's skills, enabling them to effectively communicate knowledge, especially tacit knowledge (Szulanski, 1996).To overcome the staff resistance, it would be useful to connect the organisational context, strategy, aims and vision with the potential for this knowledge transfer process to increase or improve organisational effectiveness and competitive advantage (Zheng et al, 2009 p 1).
Other challenges might relate to a lack of resources to train individuals in this kind of peer assisted learning, and a lack of time and other resources to commit to staged set contact or away days. Certainly a lack of attendance at such away days would seriously limit the effectiveness of this type of knowledge transfer. A way to overcome this might be to make optimal use of information and communications technologies (Nonaka et al, 2006 p 1179), especially email, text messaging and other types of communications interfaces, such as instant messaging and online social networking sites, as a means of allowing students to provide peer support and information sharing in their own way, and in ways which are more accessible to all students (Barak and Rafaeli, 2004 p 84; Coakes et al, 2008 p 12; Alavi and Leidner, 2001 p 107). An example of this might be the setting up of a Facebook group wherein individuals provide information about the second and third year modules and log in regularly to contribute to discussions, and answer questions or respond to comments from all of their peers. It might also be possible to use specific web based systems, such as QSIA as described by Rafaeli et al (2004 p 273), which is an online environment for learning, assessing and knowledge sharing in student communities. This would contribute to the development of the kinds of knowledge schemas and structures described above. Effective leadership would be an important aspect of all of these activities, both virtual and real time (Srivastava et al, 2006 p 1239). Some degree of control over the IT environments would also need to be exercised (Ravishankar and Pan, 2008 p 221).#p#分页标题#e#
However, this does not address the need to develop behavioural intentions in students to engage in this process of knowledge transfer, as those who transmit knowledge and those who receive it (King and Marks, 2008 p 131). Thus, it could be argued that low sense of efficacy would need to be bolstered by identifying the benefits implicit in the knowledge sharing processes for all those involved, to ensure they are motivated to engage, and also by identifying obstructive attitudes and taking steps to address these (Ryu et al, 2003 p 113). This could be supported by exploiting the social trust of student peer status, and exploiting the fact that social networks and shared goals can contribute to the volition to share knowledge (Chow and Chan, 2008 p 458; Yang and Farn, 2009 p 210).
Therefore, multiple approaches to engendering knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer would be needed in this situation; addressing challenges which are typical of this kind of process yet specific to the unique situation as well. Optimising on available knowledge is important, and making use of ICTs would be useful, but it is also important that there is ongoing managerial control and monitoring to ensure the 'knowledge' being shared is appropriate and achieves the goals of the organisation.
Get expert help on all your writing
立即预定