Knowledge Management Models And Frameworks Business Essay

The purpose of this newspaper is to critically review the many knowledge management models and frameworks. The review discovered that various knowledge management models and frameworks varies in perspectives ranging from the essential assumption of the articulation and copy of tacit and explicit knowledge to the more technical and complicated assumption that knowledge is intellectual capital and it is mechanistic in perspective as well as an important advantage that needs to be managed successfully for firm's success. In this particular paper, knowledge management models are divided into three categories: knowledge category models, intellectual capital models, and socially made models. Besides, two knowledge management frameworks will be talked about in this newspaper. Finally, a KM model and platform is tentatively advised to act as a good guide for even more research and organizational application.

Introduction

Nowadays, the earth is fully experiencing a time, namely: "knowledge age group" or the "knowledge market". In knowledge market, knowledge is the crucial commodity due to the rapidly technological progression. The technologies are eliminating the gap between competing companies and the collective understanding of the employees end up being the key factor in producing progressive and competitive products or services (Sunassee and Sewry, 2002). Since recently managers didn't encourage diffusion and posting of knowledge among employees, changing in mentality is required for managing the knowledge effectively. The knowledge-driven activities in organizations and of the broader monetary and communal life lead to the management of knowledge become very important (Sunassee and Sewry, 2002). Generally, this managerial activity has been known as Knowledge Management (Kilometres).

Previous research on knowledge management signifies the existence of various definitions of knowledge management. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge management is "the capability of the company to generate new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization and embody it in products, services, and systems. " Duffy (1999) defines knowledge management as "the recognition, growth and effective software of an organisation's critical knowledge. " Knowledge management has been identified in another term, which is an arranged and explicit process to generate, renew, and apply knowledge to maximize an organization's knowledge-related efficiency and dividends from its knowledge property (Wiig, 1997). Alavi and Leidner (1999) define knowledge management as "a systemic and organizationally specified process for acquiring, managing, and communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge of employees so that other employees may utilize it to be more effective and successful in their work". Besides, O'Dell et al. , (1998) define knowledge management as "a mindful strategy to getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and helping people share and put information into action in ways that strive to improve organizational performance". For example, Beckman (1999) define knowledge management as "the formalization of and usage of experience, knowledge and experience that induce new capabilities, permit superior performance, encourage advancement and boost customer value". Generally, KM is the process of creating, keeping, distributing, and making use of knowledge.

By reviewing the significance of knowledge management and the complexity of its mother nature, it is well-timed to try to understand the latest ideas root knowledge and knowledge management. Hence, this paper will critically analyze the latest models and frameworks of knowledge management and discuss on the assumptions and views of every model and construction. The aim of this paper is to examine the current knowledge of the theory and practice of the appearing field of knowledge management by critically assessing existing knowledge management models and frameworks. Therefore, employers or experts in organizations can understand their concepts and improved strategies can be developed and applied to organization and those who need to work and implement knowledge management.

This paper will start by showing the goals and goals and followed with a brief discussion on the types of knowledge. That is followed with the talk on some of the existing knowledge management models and frameworks.

Types of Knowledge

In today's competitive business environment, only the data of a business can provide the foundation for organizational renewal and sustainable competitive advantages. Organizational knowledge can be categorized into two distinctive types of knowledge: explicit and tacit. Matching to Polanyi (1967), explicit knowledge is the data which is easily to formalize, copy, and store; documented, articulated into formal language, officially expressible and easily to converse; tacit knowledge is regarding ideas, emotions, and specific experience, which is more complicated and difficult to share with each others.

Explicit knowledge is the fact and can be codified and transmitted in a organized and formal language. It really is usually data, which is inner to a business and can be easily gathered. Tacit knowledge is the personal activities, context-specific knowledge that is difficult to formalize record or articulate. It actually resides in the mind of folks, behavior and conception (Frid, 2000). Cases are intuitions, hunches, insights, values and principles. Both tacit and explicit knowledge are needed for an organization to achieve greater performance (Sanchez et. al. 1996).

Knowledge Management Models and Frameworks

Knowledge Category Models

These types of model categorize knowledge into discrete elements. Perhaps one of the most renowned KM models matches into this category, the Knowledge Spiral model by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). This model reveals a higher level conceptual representation of the knowledge dimensions, specifically tacit and explicit knowledge. The model makes lots of assumptions, specifically:

1. Tacit knowledge can be moved through a process of socialization (everyday comradeship) to become the tacit understanding of others - top departed quadrant

2. Tacit knowledge may become explicit knowledge through a process of externalization (formalizing a body of knowledge) - top right quadrant

3. Explicit knowledge can be transferred into tacit knowledge in others through a process of internalization (translating theories into practice) - lower part left quadrant

4. Explicit knowledge can be transferred to explicit knowledge in others through an activity of combination (incorporating existing ideas) -lower part right quadrant.

One criticism of the model is that knowledge transfer in organizations is a lot more difficult and convoluted than this simple matrix advises. The model also assumes an integration of tacit and explicit knowledge; often this isn't the truth. This model is shown in number no. 1 below.

A simple but more sophisticated version of Nonaka's model is shown in number no. 2 (Hedlund and Nonaka, 1993). This model assumes there are four different degrees of 'carriers', or 'agents', of knowledge in organizations, particularly the average person, the group, the business and the inter-organizational website (customers, suppliers, competition, etc. ). These model is effective by relating the companies to the types of knowledge; it remains problematic for the reason that it assumes the carriers, like the data, can be simply separated.

Another exemplory case of a knowledge category model is that of Boisot, (1998), as shown in figure no. 3. Boisot's model considers knowledge as codified or uncodified, diffused or undiffused, within an organization. Boisot uses the term 'codified' to make reference to knowledge that may be readily prepared for transmission purposes (e. g. financial data). The word 'uncodified' refers to knowledge that cannot be easily prepared for transmitting purposes (e. g. experience). The word 'diffused' identifies knowledge that is readily shared while 'undiffused' refers to knowledge that's not readily shared.

The model reveals the next characteristics:

1. Knowledge categorized as both codified and undiffused is known as propriety knowledge. In cases like this, knowledge is ready for transmitting but is intentionally restricted to a selectively small human population, on a 'need to know' basis (e. g. projected earnings, share price issues) - top left quadrant

2. Knowledge that is relatively uncodified and undiffused is referred to as personal knowledge (e. g. perceptions, insights, activities) - bottom level left quadrant

knowledge that is both codified and diffused is referred to as general public knowledge (e. g. publications, books, libraries) - top right quadrant

Knowledge which is relatively diffused but also uncodified is tagged good sense - lower part right quadrant. Boisot, (1998) considers such knowledge as being built up little by little by an activity of socialization, harboring customs and intuition.

There are few similarities between Nonaka's model and Boisot's model. For instance, Nonaka's categorization of explicit and tacit knowledge has a degree of correspondence with Boisot's reference to codified and uncodified knowledge. The horizontal sizing pertains to the spread or diffusion of knowledge across the firm in both models. However, Boisot's model activities the same limitations as Nonaka's model for the reason that codified and uncodified are but two discrete categories of knowledge. In addition, the idea of diffused knowledge is rather general and it is not clear if it includes incorporating knowledge within the business, as well as disseminating it.

Figure No. 3-Knowledge Category Model (Boisot, 1998)

Intellectual Capital Models

Management gurus such as Drucker (1993) and Brooking (1997) and specialist icons such as Edvinsson, (1997) elucidated the notion of Intellectual Capital (IC). Knowledge and capital have been linked together for many years. Knowledge has been capitalized as a tool much like land or engine oil. However, we also need to focus on the intangible elements which knowledge contains such as employee skills, encounters, patients, copyrights, brands, licensing opportunities, research and development, progressive use of property such as databases, etc. (Quintas et al, 1997). As these type of elements are not normally registered on the traditional organizational balance sheet they are described Intellectual Assets; hence the term Intellectual Capital.

KM is actively worried about the strategic outlook and operational methods required for controlling human focused, intellectual assets (Brooking, 1997). Matching to Peters (1992), Kilometres can affect intellectual capital or as recognizing or rediscovering resources that the business aren't using to full probable, in the end employees. As these techniques imply that the main element areas of Kilometres are the management of IC it will probably be worth reviewing a typical IC model. The model, shown below in amount no. 5, is the Intellectual Capital model from Skandia Insurance which is implemented from Chase (1997), and Roos and Roos (1997). Corresponding to Edvinsson and Malone, (1997) intellectual capital concsists the applied experience, organizational technology, customer relationships and professional skills that provide Skandia with a competitive advantage on the market.

One problem that may be associated with this model is the adoption of the scientific approach to knowledge. This is visible through the classification of knowledge as a product linking it to corporation capital. This view of intellectual capital ignores the politics and social areas of KM. KM can be decomposed into objective elements alternatively than being socio-political phenomena from the view of intellectual capital. That is like the Nonaka and Takeuchi, (1995) procedure.

As befits a fresh portion of inquiry, much analytical work is focused on categorizing, mapping and measuring of knowledge types and techniques. Although this is helpful, the epistemological basis of the field cannot be ignored (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999). Hence, we have to accept socially constructed types of KM.

Figure No. 4-Intellectual Capital Style of Kilometres (Chase, 1997)

Socially Produced Models

This band of models assumes a wide meaning of knowledge observing it to be intrinsically associated within the interpersonal and learning processes of the organization. KM can be involved with the construction, capture, interpretation, embodiment, dissemination and use of knowledge. These components are represented in Demerest's (1997) Knowledge Management model. The model is developed from the initial work of Clark and Staunton, (1989) and Nonaka and Takeuchi, (1995). It can be in comparison to that of Jordan and Jones, (1997) who speak of knowledge acquisition, problem resolving, dissemination, ownership and storage and that of Kruizinga et al. (1997) who include knowledge policy, infrastructure and culture.

Firstly, the model stresses the construction of knowledge within the business. The model assumes that created knowledge is then embodied. Next the embodied knowledge is disseminated throughout the organization. Ultimately the data is used to gain economic value in regards to to organizational outputs. The dark-colored arrows in figure no. 5 show the primary flow direction as the white arrows show the more recursive moves.

Figure No. 5 -Knowledge Management Model - Demerest, (1997)

Demerest's model is of interest in that it does not suppose any given classification of knowledge but rather invites a far more holistic method of knowledge development. However, it can imply a simplistic procession method of the flow of knowledge copy, while in reality this may be extremely immediate and circulatory.

To overcome this difference a slightly changed version of Demerest's model has been developed, body no. 6. First of all the model stresses the engineering of knowledge within an organization where the scientific or public paradigm may be followed. The technological view of knowledge requires a "knowledge is truth" view (Morgan, 1986). This view considers that knowledge is a body of facts and logical laws and regulations thus promoting a non-personal view of knowledge, skills and duties (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Alternatively the public view of knowledge is concerned with the cultural and learning operations within an corporation. However, this process assumes that knowledge construction is inequality, issue, domination, subordination and manipulation influences as well as more traditional behavioral questions associated with efficiency and desire (Alvesson and Wilmott, 1996). Thus cultural knowledge engineering is a dynamic procedure for contextuality rather than the assimilation of the body of facts. In the McAdam and McCreedy's (1999) model depicted in number no. 6, knowledge building is not limited to technological inputs through explicit programmes but includes a process of social interaction.

The implications of the broader idea of knowledge building must be shown in the embodiment/dissemination of knowledge as part of the organization's KM methodology. There exists little point in widening the concept of knowledge construction and then limit the embodiment and dissemination techniques used or to drive existing techniques onto new knowledge. Wanting to do it will lead to disappointing results, stress and a negative view to Kilometres induced by the mismatch between conception and application. Knowledge usage must be shown via the data initiatives installed in the organization.

Demerest (1997) identifies 'use' (as deployed in shape no. 6) as "the development of commercial value for the customer". While increasing commercial value is a key objective of Kilometres, it isn't the only objective. Therefore knowledge use must be employed through the use of a complementary methodology for emancipatory enhancements and group outputs. This will permit the organization to be viewed and reformed from different perspectives that will help in continuous creativity, thus creating the ultimate business benefits for the organization all together. While the interconnecting vectors (dark-colored arrows) show the principal movement of activity, more recursive arrows are put into mirror the circulating mother nature of activity flows, thus depicting that Kilometres is not really a simple sequential process.

Figure No. 6-Modified Version of Demerest's Knowledge Management Model (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999)

Knowledge Management Frameworks

Stankosky and Baldanza (2001) developed an understanding management construction which addresses allowing factors such as learning, culture, leadership, organization and technology (refer to body no. 7). This construction presents that knowledge management includes a wide range of disciplines that include cognitive research, communication, individual and organizational habit, psychology, money, economics, human reference, management, tactical planning, system thinking, process reengineering, system engineering, computer systems and software and library science.

This framework comprises four major foundations of an organization which is very important to knowledge management are leadership, organization structure, technology infrastructure and learning. The role of leadership is practicing proper planning and systems thinking strategies, making best use of resources, fostering a culture that promotes wide open dialogue and team learning, and for encouraging and satisfying risk taking, learning and knowledge posting. Organization structure should accomplish personal connections and support areas of practice to fully capture tacit and explicit knowledge within the business. Besides, organizational composition should help in trust among people within the business and encourage free exchange of knowledge. Technology infrastructure allows exchange of information without formal set ups. Technology infrastructure should improve the efficient and effective shoot of both tacit and explicit knowledge. It should also support knowledge writing in the complete organization. Lastly, learning is in charge of managing information to be able to build enterprise large knowledge and use that knowledge to organizational learning, change and performance improvement.

Figure No. 7-Basic Disciplines Underlying Knowledge Management and its own Enabling Factors (Stankosky and Baldanza, 2001)

Karadesh et al. (2009) developed a knowledge management platform that stresses on developing stages such as knowledge infrastructure, knowledge mix, knowledge filtering, knowledge repository, knowledge posting, knowledge application, and finally, knowledge performance across the KM process (make reference to body no. 8).

The first component is knowledge infrastructure, which depends on building the proper culture for Knowledge Management System and establishes the knowing of the importance of KM among the list of individuals in the business. The second element is knowledge blend that functions as a momentary repository of accumulated information from the infrastructure phase. The third factor is knowledge analysis which is utilized to assess the knowledge based on the value; exactness and relevance after the knowledge have been put together from different options (Sunassee and Sewry, 2002). Knowledge filtering is the fourth element that prepares knowledge to be stored in the next phase, after going right through classification, categorization and corporation. The fifth factor is knowledge repository that functions as storage for the data collected before stages. It also may very well be organization ram and retention of knowledge investments. Knowledge posting is a key process in the process of the KM that exchanges and stocks knowledge on the list of individuals in the business. Knowledge program is the seventh factor that applies and represents information to knowledge seekers in appropriate matter. The last aspect is knowledge performance which is employed to judge every Kilometres system, process, performance, and impact of KM. It really is performing in line with the group goals and targets.

Figure No. 8-Conceptual Construction for Knowledge Management Process

(Karadesh et al. , 2009)

Conclusion

The review of existing knowledge management models and frameworks has seen a broad spectral range of viewpoints. Knowledge management has been seen from the categorical view in which knowledge are classified into discrete elements as observed in Boisot, Nonaka, and Nonaka and Hedlund's models to the more complicated and complex perspective of knowledge that is mechanistic and socially constructed orientation (McAdam and McCreedy's, 1999). Furthermore, these knowledge management models have made reference to: first, the procedure of taking care of the stream knowledge; second, categorization models are mechanistic; third, the intellectual capital model assumed that intellectual capital are crucial assets in firm and should be manage effectively for firm's success; fourth, Demerest's model is intrinsically associated with the public and learning process within organizations; McAdam and McCreedy's model is marginally customized from Demerest's model, which looks for to address the constraints by explicitly demonstrating the influence of both sociable and technological paradigms of knowledge development, and extends the "use" factor to cover both business and staff benefits. Stankosky and Baldanza's knowledge management construction emphasized that leadership, organization composition, technology infrastructure and learning are important foundations for knowledge management within an business; finally, Karadesh et al. 's knowledge management platform represents with extensive and detailed procedures and will provide rules for executing Kilometres efficiently, save time and attempts and to avoid inaccuracies. Even though knowledge management models and frameworks have advanced every once in awhile, basically the models and frameworks give a way of changing managerial activities and guiding managerial initiatives in managing knowledge in the organizations.

The Kilometres model and construction that are recommended to do something as a useful guide for further research and organizational software is McAdam and McCreedy's model and Karadesh et al. 's framework. McAdam and McCreedy's model combines clinical and socially designed knowledge, and also the "uses/benefits" of Kilometres are seen as both emancipatory and since business focused. Karadesh et al. 's framework offers a broadest research of KM process you can use to foster the introduction of business knowledge and enhance the organizational impact of people throughout the organizations. Therefore, it's advocated that this model and platform could become a useful guide for further research and literature evaluation in the region of knowledge management.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)