Paper: KM Tech 2: DiscussionOutline | Introduction | KM strategy |
KM technologies | Ontology |
Discussion | References
In
this study, we have developed two theoretical constructs: a conceptual
map of the KM strategy topic (Figure 1), and an ontology of KM
technologies (Figure 6). Each of them allows us some interesting
conclusions. First, the analysis of the conceptual map suggests a
contingency approach to explain the relationship between KM
technologies and strategy. According to the map, KM instruments,
including KM practices and KM technologies, should always be chosen in
accordance with knowledge intents and approaches to KM, and not the
other way around. Also, knowledge intents and approaches to KM are
heavily context-dependent: - Knowledge intents reflect an
organization-specific knowledge-based competitive strategy, and are
always associated with particular knowledge domains.
- Approaches
to KM depend on the specific types of knowledge being dealt with, and
must take into account the cognitive and social contexts of the
organization.
Thus, although we have designed an ontology
of KM technologies aiming to be generic, this ontology can offer proper
guidance only if additional contextual knowledge is provided. The
dichotomies creation/transfer and personalization/codification per se
are not enough to justify the strategic contribution of KM technologies. Second,
the analysis of the ontology suggests three main alternatives available
for the adoption of KM technologies. An organization implementing KM
solution might choose: - To build custom KM systems from available component technologies.
- To buy off-the-shelf KM applications that provide required functionality.
- To buy off-the-shelf business applications that embed KM technologies.
The
actual choice would depend on several factors, like KM application
scope, urgency level, existing infrastructure, application portfolio,
and budget, to cite a few. Notwithstanding, the ontology provide useful
guidance for practitioners, either by suggesting appropriate
combinations of technologies, in case of in-house development, or by
offering criteria for adequate selection of commercial alternatives, in
case of purchase. --earlier version--
The analysis of the conceptual map in figure 1 suggests a contingency approach
to KM, focusing on KM initiatives instead of on knowledge processes. A
KM initiative is ... and takes into account elements from the external
environment, via the strategy, and from organizational context, via
both the strategy and the approaches chosen.
Two main conclusions:
- First, the unit of analysis should be the KM initiative. A KM initiative support a specific knowledge intent, according to a particular approach to KM, by using KM instruments to improve knowledge processes.
- Knowledge
intents reflect (are the outcome) a knowledge-based competitive
strategy, and are always associated to a knowledge domain.
- Approaches
to KM emphasize particular types of knowledge, and take into account
the cognitive and social context of the initiative.
- KM instruments operationalize the KM initiative, (giving it shape?)(making it happen?)(supporting it?)
- Knowledge processes...levels
- Second, there are three main alternatives for adopting KM technologies (or technology in support to KM). They are:
- To build KM systems from component technologies
- To buy KM applications
- To buy business applications that embed KM technologies
ImplicationsFurther
research can be conducted to verify if there are exemplar initiatives
that present typical combinations of intent, approach, instruments and
processes. A survey of extant literature suggests some hints: product
development, customer service, process improvement.
| 
