The full scope of knowledge management
(KM) is not something that is universally accepted. However, before one
looks at the differences in the definitions, let's examine the
similarities.
KM is about making the right knowledge available to the right people. It
is about making sure that an organization can learn, and that it will
be able to retrieve and use its knowledge assets in current applications
as they are needed. In the words of Peter Drucker it is "the
coordination and exploitation of
organizational knowledge resources, in order to create benefit and competitive advantage" (Drucker 1999).
Where the disagreement sometimes occurs is in conjunction with the
creation of new knowledge. Wellman (2009) limits the scope of KM to
lessons learned and the techniques employed for the management of what
is already known. He argues that
knowledge creation is often perceived as a separate discipline and generally falls under innovation management.
Bukowitz and Williams (1999) link KM directly to tactical and strategic
requirements. Its focus is on the use and enhancement of knowledge based
assets to enable the firm to respond to these issues. According to this
view, the answer to the question "what is knowledge management" would
be significantly broader.
A similarly broad definition is presented by Davenport & Prusak
(2000), which states that KM "is managing the corporation's knowledge
through a systematically and organizationally specified process for
acquiring, organizing, sustaining, applying, sharing and renewing both
the
tacit and
explicit knowledge of employees to enhance organizational performance and create value."
I will also choose to answer the question "what is knowledge management"
in the broader perspective, encompassing not just the exploitation and
management of existing knowledge assets, but the also the initiatives
involved in the creation and acquisition of new knowledge. In the next
article, I will arrive at a specific knowledge management definition.
Alan Frost
Comments
Post a Comment