Developing a Framework for Managing Tacit Knowledge in Research using Knowledge Management Models

This research investigates whether and how selected models from Knowledge Management (KM) can be used to devise a framework for building coherent and rigorous methodologies for research in the creative and practice-led disciplines (CPD). This research has arisen from methodological problems of research in art and design in the UK concerning how, and the extent to which, non-propositional and tacit kinds of knowledge (e.g. experiential, procedural) can be included and communicated within research. The proposed research builds on previous studies by the authors into the role and relationship of different kinds of knowledge in research (Niedderer, 2007a, 2007b), and into how knowledge management (KM) and creative disciplines provide complementary insights on how knowledge can be managed and transferred (Imani, 2007). The research investigates whether and how the SECI model (Nonaka &amp; Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, 2000) can be used to develop a framework for managing different kinds of knowledge in research. Our research goes beyond existing approaches by offering a generic and flexible framework which researchers can use to better understand and build their own research methodologies and to integrate individual methods with regard to managing different kinds of knowledge.</p

Co-Operative Inquiry as a basis for Evaluation of Knowledge Management Tools

This paper highlights the changes needed in the practice of IT evaluation when directed towards IT used to support knowledge management. The paper addresses the need for evaluation to recognise the increased emphasis on IT supporting the work of communities of practice in contrast to simply automating organisational processes. A framework that uses a form of action research (co-operative inquiry) is suggested that attempts to widen participation within the evaluation process and to enrich the purpose to which evaluation is put, especially in regard to the IS practitioner and IS users

Managing the KM Trade-Off: Knowledge Centralization versus Distribution

KM is more an archipelago of theories and practices rather than a monolithic approach. We propose a conceptual map that organizes some major approaches to KM according to their assumptions on the nature of knowledge. The paper introduces the two major views on knowledge ­objectivist, subjectivist - and explodes each of them into two major approaches to KM: knowledge as a market, and knowledge as intellectual capital (the objectivistic perspective); knowledge as mental models, and knowledge as practice (the subjectivist perspective). We argue that the dichotomy between objective and subjective approaches is intrinsic to KM within complex organizations, as each side of the dichotomy responds to different, and often conflicting, needs: on the one hand, the need to maximize the value of knowledge through its replication; on the other hand, the need to keep knowledge appropriate to an increasingly complex and changing environment. Moreover, as a proposal for a deeper discussion, such trade-off will be suggested as the origin of other relevant KM related trade-offs that will be listed. Managing these trade-offs will be proposed as a main challenge of KM

Towards a knowledge management assessment tool : the operations management perspective

Copyright and all rights therein are retained by the authors. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and conditions invoked by each author's copyright. These works may not be re-posted without the explicit permission of the copyright holdersPractitioners are often confused by the wide range of Knowledge Management (KM) solutions that researchers and consultants offer. Part of this confusion is because they cannot determine how these solutions fit into their existing KM systems. KM assessment should be the starting point for any KM initiative yet extant literature provides little guidance in this area. In this paper we propose a tool that organisations can use to assess their Knowledge Management (KM) practices in order for them to make informed decisions and invest wisely. To that end we propose the Operations perspective of KM which encapsulates existing thinking. Our proposal goes further to outline key elements that a KM assessment tool must have and review existing tools against these elements. The KM assessment tool proposed in this paper has its roots in Quality literature and is ideal for assessing as well as designing KM systemsFinal Published versio

What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works

This paper is a comparative review of four seminal works on communities of practice. It is argued that the ambiguities of the terms community and practice are a source of the concept's reusability allowing it to be reappropriated for different purposes, academic and practical. However, it is potentially confusing that the works differ so markedly in their conceptualizations of community, learning, power and change, diversity and informality. The three earlier works are underpinned by a common epistemological view, but Lave and Wenger's 1991 short monograph is often read as primarily about the socialization of newcomers into knowledge by a form of apprenticeship, while the focus in Brown and Duguid's article of the same year is, in contrast, on improvising new knowledge in an interstitial group that forms in resistance to management. Wenger's 1998 book treats communities of practice as the informal relations and understandings that develop in mutual engagement on an appropriated joint enterprise, but his focus is the impact on individual identity. The applicability of the concept to the heavily individualized and tightly managed work of the twenty-first century is questionable. The most recent work by Wenger – this time with McDermott and Snyder as coauthors – marks a distinct shift towards a managerialist stance. The proposition that managers should foster informal horizontal groups across organizational boundaries is in fact a fundamental redefinition of the concept. However it does identify a plausible, if limited, knowledge management (KM) tool. This paper discusses different interpretations of the idea of 'co-ordinating' communities of practice as a management ideology of empowerment