Paper: KM Tech 2: KM Strategy

Outline | Introduction | KM strategy | KM technologies | Ontology | Discussion | References

KM strategy

• KM approach
• Knowledge strategy
• Paper: KM strategy as implementation plan
  

We found three different meanings associated with the term KM strategy in the literature. The most common of them interprets KM strategy as an approach to KM, a fact that reflects the diversity of perspectives presented in the field and the lack of consensual models. A second meaning relates KM to strategic management, and define KM strategy as knowledge strategy, a critical element of knowledge-based competitive strategy. A third meaning, usually employed in practical contexts, conveys a KM implementation strategy when mentioning KM strategy. All three meanings shed light on the relation between KM technologies and strategy and are used to develop the ontology.

KM strategy as approach to KM

Numerous authors mean a particular approach to KM when they use the term KM strategy. Different approaches to KM reflect distinct perspectives, conceptualizations, and methodologies that emerge from particular disciplinary backgrounds, specific interpretations of what knowledge is and how it can be managed, and the varied backgrounds and agendas of those involved in KM. Since the field is relatively new, existing approaches are varied and diverse. It is possible, however, to group them in some relevant types.

The most common type of approach to KM seems to be technology-oriented ones, which emphasize the explicit nature of knowledge, and tend to interpret it as an object that can be stored in repositories and transferred via information and communication technologies. These approaches represent the content perspective on KM (Hayes & Walsham, 2003), the object, product or stock perspectives on knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Mentzas et al., 2001), codification or system strategies for KM (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999; Choi & Lee, 2002), and technocratic schools of KM (Earl, 2001).

People-oriented approaches, on the other hand, emphasize the tacit nature of knowledge, and tend to interpret it as a social, context-dependent process of understanding that requires human communication and cognition in order to emerge. These approaches represent the relational perspective on KM (Hayes & Walsham, 2003), the process or flow perspectives on knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Mentzas et al., 2001), personalization or human strategies for KM (Hansen et al., 1999; Choi & Lee, 2002), and behavioral schools of KM (Earl, 2001).

These two prominent types of approach reflect a major division in the KM literature and practice between technology and people orientation. Some authors favor one over the other, either technology-oriented approaches or people-oriented ones. Others argue that both can be effective, but there is a trade-off between them: if an organization emphasizes one, it should avoid the other (Hansen et al, 1999). We believe that a balance is preferred, and an organization can benefit from using both types of approaches in different circumstances, for different purposes (Umemoto, 2002).

Other relevant types of approaches include asset-oriented ones, which focus on measuring the economic value of knowledge, thus referred to as intellectual capital or intangible asset (Stewart, 1997; Sveiby, 1997, Edvinsson & Malone, 1997), and process-oriented ones, which focus on increasing business processes effectiveness by providing employees with context-specific knowledge at the task level (Heisig, 2001; Maier & Remus, 2001)

KM strategy as knowledge strategy

The knowledge strategy concept builds on the knowledge-based view of the firm to bridge knowledge management and strategic management. The knowledge-based view argues that a firm’s unique knowledge is the key source of competitive advantage, allowing it to combine conventional resources in distinctive ways and provide superior value to customers (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Spender, 1994; Nonaka, 1994; Grant, 1996; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). A knowledge strategy identifies this unique knowledge, either existing in the firm or required for a projected situation, and draft ways to develop and/or capitalize on it (Zack, 1999, 2002; von Krogh, Nonaka & Aben, 2001).

The key elements of a knowledge strategy are knowledge domains and knowledge intents. Knowledge domains are areas of interest and expertise that comprise strategic knowledge resources (von Krogh et al, 2001; van der Spek, Hofer-Alfeis & Kingma, 2003). Domains can focus on external or internal issues, and be more general or more specific. Examples of domains are industries, markets, and customers, which focus on external opportunities and threats; organizational functions and processes, which focus on internal capabilities; and products, services, and technologies, which try connect internal capabilities to identified opportunities.

Knowledge intents are the substance of a knowledge strategy, and are derived from the comparison between existing and required knowledge resources, resulting in the identification of knowledge gaps and/or surpluses (Zack, 1999, van der Spek et al., 2003). Knowledge resources can exist internally or be available externally; thus, generic knowledge intents are: 1) to leverage existing internal knowledge, 2) to acquire existing external knowledge, or 3) to create new knowledge (von Krogh et al., 2001).

The literature on knowledge-based strategy refers to a dichotomy between exploitation, the application of existing knowledge, and exploration, the creation of new knowledge (Grant, 2002). Both are necessary, in fact, and companies should seek a balance, using exploitation to provide the revenue required for exploration, the basis of long-term revenues (Zack, 1999; Ichijo, 2002; Chakravarthy et al., 2003). In the ontology, we refer to these two concepts as knowledge creation (exploration) and transfer (exploitation).

KM strategy as KM implementation strategy

Authors concerned with the practice of KM sometimes use the term KM strategy to refer to strategies for implementing KM. KM strategy, in this sense, is a general plan that provides guidelines for making decisions and attaining results from KM initiatives. This concept of KM strategy applies mainly to executives and managers responsible for the KM function or KM programs in an organization.

Existing KM implementation frameworks (Wiig, 1999; Soliman & Spooner, 2000; Rubenstein- Montano et al., 2001; O’Dell et al., 2003; Wong & Aspinwall, 2004a), which help practitioners to design particular implementation strategies, include a myriad of recommendations. We can summarized them in the following topics: 1) securing a set of required conditions, 2) choosing and prioritizing a ser of initiatives, and 3) establishing evaluation criteria.

Some elements are often cited as requirements for (or indicators of) successful KM programs. Among them, we can include senior management support, alignment with strategy and business requirements, consideration of organizational dynamics and culture, and involvement of key personnel and stakeholders (Wiig, 1999; O’Dell et al., 2003; Wong & Aspinwall, 2004b).

The actual implementation happens through a series of KM initiatives designed to support knowledge processes, usually balancing human- and technology-oriented approaches. A frequent recommendation is to prioritize initiatives according to a trade-off between opportunity (easy to carry out) and strategy (valued business results), and to implement them in stages, starting with pilot projects that provide lessons for further expansion (O’Dell et al., 2003; Wong & Aspinwall, 2004a).

Finally, almost all frameworks mention the need for assessing results and providing for accountability. This includes the need for identifying expected business benefits and developing a business case, collecting anecdotal evidence, and adopting performance indicators and metrics, both KM-specific and business- driven (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; O’Dell et al., 2003; del-Rey-Chamorro, 2003).

Descriptions of implementation approaches include both top-down and bottom-up ones. The necessary considerations tend to be the same; only the order in which they are carried seems to be different. Top-down approaches usually start by securing the required conditions and establishing evaluation criteria, while bottom-up ones start with local initiatives that expand later by focusing on the other elements.

Linking KM technologies to KM strategy

It is possible to understand the relation between KM technologies and business strategy by analyzing the three meanings associated to KM strategy (mapped in the Figure 1). We say that a given KM program is strategic if: 1) there is a knowledge strategy in place, which defines knowledge intents that support a particular knowledge-based competitive strategy; and 2) the program includes a set of KM initiatives that directly or indirectly support those knowledge intents. Moreover, since KM technologies are always used in the context of KM initiatives, if those initiatives do support a knowledge strategy, then the technologies have strategic value.

It is also possible to identify four ways by which KM initiatives can be used strategically. KM initiatives naturally follow a particular approach to KM, the prominent ones being personalization and codification (Hansen et al., 1999). If those initiatives support a knowledge intent, then we have also a balance between creating and transferring knowledge. By combining knowledge intents with approaches to KM, we have the following possibilities: 1) creating knowledge according to a personalization approach, 2) creating knowledge according to a codification approach, 3) transferring knowledge according to a personalization approach, and 4) transferring knowledge according a codification approach (Figure 2). KM technologies can support all four types of initiatives.

Notes