Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management seems to be the hottest subject now a days. I am reading too many articles on this and the more I read, the more I get confused. But since this IS the most important topic these days, I thought of gaining some insight into this. My first attempt was to develop some perspective regarding this stuff called KNOWLEDGE which certainly has become a desirable object to be managed. I had read somewhere, though knowing me you would simply accept the fact that I dont remember where, that

• A collection of data is not information
• A collection of information is not knowledge
• A collection of knowledge is not wisdom
• A collection of wisdom is not truth.

What I could understand with my challenged IQ is that information, knowledge, wisdom and truth are more than simply collections of data. Collection of data is important, but not the most important activity in the making up of information, knowledge, wisdom and/or truth.

Now moving onto Knowledge management, I realized that probably Knowledge management would be hard to define precisely and crisply. The KM gurus and experts of the industry have defined KM in a varied no. of ways. Thats not surprising. Its like, how would a VP HR define "Staffing Management", or rather is there a unique definition of "Staffing Management"? Or "Compensation Management"? Each of these domains is complex with many branches of specialization. Similarly I believe Knowledge Management is also a hell of a complex domain, which we complicate even more while attempting to simplify it. Knowledge management is managing knowledge, and when there is no simple definition of knowledge in the first place, how can we even think of simplifying the definition of Knowledge Management?!

There are many thoughful and thought provoking definition of knowledge. And there are some good specifications and types mentioned as well. Say, for eg, Explicit Knowledge and Tacit Knowledge. Now KM Gurus can write epic on each of these, but given my challenged brain (which is more challenged these days for a no. of imp and unimp reasons), I would simply refer to them as formal and informal knowledge respectively, without going into further details. Explicit or formal knowledge is something that can be articulated, transmitted and presented amongst individuals with different relevant references. On the other hand tacit or informal knowledge is basically personal and is rooted in individula beliefs, valus and perspective. They may or may not have valid references.

Before the evolution of Knowledge Management in such an organised way, as it is presently being done, the perceptions of the role of knowledge in business was that tacit knowledge was more often viewed as the real key to getting things done. Thus we often experience that conservative organizations lay more emphasis on the "learning organization" and other approaches that stress internalization of information (through experience and action) and generation of new knowledge through managed interaction. With the market place becoming more competitive than ever, reductions in staffing, time crisis, eraly retirements and increasing mobility of the work force, changes in strategic directions etc lead to loss of knowledge these days. Hence over the past decade or so, we felt an enormous ggrowth in the direction of knowledge management. Tacit knwledge solwly started getting replaced by explicit knowledge . In short, knowledge and information have become the medium in which business problems occur more. And hence the need for KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT.

Neoclassical Economists have also equated knowledge to a product with codified knowledge or information. Earlier, knowledge, perhaps due to its non-linear nature, has played only a minor role and has been treated as a distraction in traditional economic models. However, Austrian School Of Economics has taken a deep interest in building substantial theories towards explaining the important role of knowledge in economic life. Prof Fredrich Von Hayek observes, as early as in 1945, that for the realization of equilibrium as conceptualized in the orthodox economic theories, there must be a conicidence of the objective real facts of the economy and subjective knowledge of human subjects.

Knowledge based economy or knowledge economy mark the beginning of "new economic era". These neo economists subtly began suggesting that the missing link related to success in strategic decision making is one's hidden or tacit knowledge! Many economists gradullay began to draw a parallel between The Theory of the Firm and knowledge-based perspectives. The scholars of the knowledge based view tend to "agree" that the link between asset specificity and boundary choice has little to do with oppurtunistic behavior or failed markets. In contrast to classical economic theories, the knowledge-based view regards the specificity of assets and skills as critical to the firm;s performance.

Once economics accepted the value of knowledge in the growth of the society, how can managing knowledge be left behind the scope of performance and betterment? Kowledge was slowly gaining moreimportance than before and in 1992 some of the neo-classical economists built an arguement against the Transaction Cost View, claiming that the relative advantages of the organizations arise from the superior abilities in both creating and exploiting knowledge. In 1996, C.K.Prahalad further stressed the fact that Knowledge is "independent" from the transaction economy's opportunistic considerations. ...and the list just goes on and on.

So, the acceptance of Knowledge into the "economics" has made it an object of "management" - how "money-minded" we human beings are! :-)

Being a sutdent of economics, I could contribute this much to this "hot topic" of the season! Rest, if you are still interested about Knowledge Management - please refer to hosts of blogs and wikis on this topic...all the best!