Complexity in the KM field
| Introduction | References |
--Tsui, 2003, Tracking the Role and Evolution of Commercial KM Software--Knowledge workers often have disparate interpretations of the term KM. According to Wiig (1998), this can be partly attributed to the differences in the background, experience and responsabilities of workers in organizations. There is still no one universally accepted definition for KM, and the general consensus is that a multidisciplinary approach is needed.
--Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003, Watersheds of OL and KM--The authors mention the novelty and speed of development of the field: there is very little activity before 1990, and in some sub-areas almost everything dates after 1995. The speed of development, coupled with the lead times of publishing, means it is hard to develop a cumulative sense to the field where studies and publications are able to build systematically on previous work.
They also note the increasing diversity and specialization of the field. This has lead to tighter definitions and the isolation of problems such as the political implications of organizational learning and knowledge management; but it has also led to developments taking place in parallel which result in limited awareness of what is happening elsewhere at the same time. There is therefore a need to locate different sub-areas in relation to each other, so that overlaps and potencial areas of synergy can be identified. There is a need for some mapping exercises.
Furthermore, debates have flourished as a result of this diversity. Debates focused around the definition of terms and the meaning of concepts, the appropriateness of methods of inquiry, ways of influencing learning processes within organizations, and the purposes to which we shoud put our knowledge of organizational learning (OL) and KM. These are highly desirable because they lead to clarification of terms, sharpening of distinctions, and development of new ideas.
Surprisingly, despite the growing diversity they noted a considerable commonality in the field, in the form of repeated citations of works that have a disproportionate influence in the evolution of the field. These include classics like John Dewey, Michel Polanyi, Edith Penrose, and Friedrich Hayek; and more current works like Cyert and March (1963), March and Olsen (1975), Argyris and Schon (1978), Fiol and Lyles (1985), March (1991), Huber (1991), Simon (1991), Brown and Duguid (1991), Lave and Wenger (1991) in organizational learning; Senge (1990) in learning organization; Nelson and Winter (1982), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Spender (1996) in organizational knowledge; and Davenport and Prusak (1998) in knowledge management.
and recurrent key concepts.
|
