5.1 QUESTION ASKING AND ANSWERING
Question
asking and answering is a foundational process by which what people know
tacitly becomes expressed, and hence, externalized as knowledge. To support
such a view, we borrow from speech acts theory [Searle, J., 1969] that amongst
others categorizes question asking as a form of a speech act. In adapting the
theory, Hirschheim et al. [1995] describe types of speech acts that pertain to
aspects of either Knowledge Management (KM), or Information Management (IM).
For example, Boahene and Ditsa [2003] suggest that Information Management
systems target a base of expressive speech acts by mainly supporting the recall
of meaning-attribution while Knowledge Management systems target regulative and
constantive speech acts primarily to support the organization
and management of
dynamic complexity.
They
reason that IM addresses questions such as ‘Where,’ ‘Who,’ ‘When,’ and ‘What,’
while KM targets problems involving dynamic complexity, addressing solutions to
questions such as ‘How’ and ‘Why.’ Quigley and Debons [1999] adopted a similar
stance that considers information as texts that primarily answer ‘informative’
questions such as who, when, what, or where while knowledge is considered as
texts that answer more ‘explanatory’ or ‘meaning related’ questions such as why
or how.
Another
category of questions, “What-if,” will also fall in the domain of knowledge
activity. Since such questions necessitate predicting and prioritizing
outcomes, attempts to address such “what-if ” questions will require
integrating understanding of “what” with “why” and “how” to arrive at
reasonable resolution.Thus, what-if questions, primarily seen in the decision
making domain, will likely call for exhaustion of all possible scenarios in
order to arrive at any “best” alternative.
5.2 POSTING
CONTENT TO REPOSITORIES
Contributing
content such as lessons-learned, project experiences, and success stories is
another approach to knowledge sharing. The capturing of best practice has often
been highlighted as a form of externalized knowledge. O’Dell and Jackson [1998]
point out the importance of frameworks for classifying information.
For
many professionals who are used to online communication and accessing databases
and discussion lists, we could argue that it is quicker and easier for the
professionals to make the contribution themselves. Nick et al. [2001], noting
the importance of learning by experience, point out that experience bases can
be developed using case-based reasoning as the underlying concept. However,
they also note that experience repositories require continuous maintenance and
updating in order to handle continuous streams of experience.
Selvin
and Buckingham [2002] describe a tool, Compendium, that claims to support rapid
knowledge construction.They ground their claim on an empirical case study of
its use in a corporate contingency planning situation by demonstrating the
creation of knowledge content in a real time ‘on-the-fly’mode of content
authoring, complemented by collaborative validation.
The
developed content is then made available to others for (re)use, or, for
re-combination, to support newinstances of knowledge creation. Richter et al.
[2004] describe a functionally similar tool, TAGGER, designed and
operationalized as allowing knowledge acquisition discussions to be “tagged” in
real time with the relevant concepts so as to lessen the burden on
documentation. As awareness increases for the importance of making knowledge
explicit, more and more products will appear to help with creating knowledge
bases and decision recommendations, but it is a mindset open to using, sharing,
and creating knowledge that will make a difference in creating an
organizational knowledge culture.
5.3
(RE)USING KNOWLEDGE
Desouza
et al. [2006] assert that the decision to consume knowledge can be framed as a
problem of risk evaluation, with perceived complexity and relative advantage
being identified as factors relating to intentions to “consume” knowledge.
However, it is essential that the knowledge consumer is able to reasonably
frame his or her knowledge needs. Belkin et al. [1982] found that during
problem articulation, users have anomalous states of knowledge, and they may
not be able to specify their information needs accurately. Since the
publication of this seminal work legions of researchers have worked on systems
that will help people formulate effective questions that will retrieve relevant
formation.McMahon et al. [2004], studying team work involving engineering
design, suggest that both codification and personalization approaches to
knowledge reuse are relevant. They recognize the notion of information value,
allowing for the matching of information to the knowledge needs of the user.
They propose that good representations of both information characteristics and
user characteristics are essential.
5.4
KNOWLEDGE-BASED DECISION MAKING
In
general, decision making involves identifying alternatives, projecting
probabilities and outcomes of alternatives, and evaluating outcomes according
to known preferences and implications for stakeholders. Choo, C. [2002]
suggests that decision making activity requires the establishment of shared
meanings and the assumption of prior knowledge.
Shared
meanings and purposes as well as newknowledge and capabilities, converge on
decision making as the activity leading to the selection and initiation of
action.Shared meanings, agendas, and identities select the premises, rules, and
routines that structure decision making. New knowledge and capabilities make
possible new alternatives and outcomes, expanding the range of available
organizational responses [Choo, C., 2002, p. 86]. Choo further proposes that
information flows are a central process that bridges knowledge creation and
decision making activity. Information flows continuously between sense making,
knowledge creating, and decision making, so that the outcome of information use
in one mode provides the elaborated context and the expanded resources for
information use in the other modes [Choo, C., 2002, p. 85].
Information
used in one activity that results in new knowledge will, in turn, be used to
guide selection of alternatives in future tasks that involve decision making.
Codified rules and routines would be relied on to support evaluation of
alternatives and selection of action decisions. Choice of alternatives, and
decision outcomes then provide the backdrop upon which sense making, or
justification, of decision rationale occurs. Such decision rationale, and its
associated sense making can then be codified for (re)use in other contexts,
applied to future activities that draw on it to create new instances of
knowledge.
source
Knowledge Management (KM)
Processes in Organizations
Theoretical Foundations and Practice
