Thursday, May 1, 2014
Folksonomy
I created, piecemeal, a folksonomy over on CiteULike for this class. Probably the most helpful thing I did for myself was create a "research" tag for primary research articles, so I could keep track of how many I'd read (and, by extension, how many review articles I'd read). I tried to create a kind of knowledge web by using primarily small tags for big ideas-- breaking down main concepts into a handful of tags, which might apply to other readings over time. So I might click "economy" if I want to see the entire thread of my readings about the knowledge economy, or "social_media" if I wanted to expand on that idea, etc. I'd planned to stop creating new tags at a certain point, so all tags could theoretically connect one reading to others concerning that topic, but that didn't end up panning out-- I needed to include an element of longer tags which tried to get at the central difference of this reading from the others, which meant I was still making new tags on the very last day of term. In that way, my tags functioned as both a note-taking system and the cataloging system I'd intended.
Final Push
I had a moment of panic when I sat down to choose my final readings (as I believe my approach has made clear, I didn't exactly map everything out ahead of time), and I realized I only had 30 items in my CiteULike library! As I was meant to end up with 35 (23 review articles + 10 research articles + 2 books) by the end of term, that would have meant having five readings to analyze for this post, which would have been a disaster. (For a certain definition of the word disaster.)
Fortunately, I'm pretty good at math, and I knew this was impossible. I lined up my blog post bibliographies and went through my CiteULike library chronologically, and I realized I got distracted while analyzing the Massingham piece a few weeks back and forgot to stick it in my library. So I added that and then I was good to go with the four I had intended.
Except I couldn't manage to track down one of those (the doi doesn't exist?) so I had to pull in a last-minute fifth title as a substitution anyway.
The creation of this blog post is an excellent metaphor for this entire semester.
I began with Hemsley & Mason. I liked this piece right off the bat because the term "knowledge ecosystem" makes me feel a lot more keenly invested in this idea than "knowledge economy" ever has. Maybe it's the science education in my background, but the implication of interrelatedness and living interdependency gets me excited. (I'm a nerd.) This is especially appropriate for social media, which very much depends on human interaction and can change in a minute-- it's dependent on individuals, but also much bigger than they are. Harnessing this power from a knowledge management standpoint has been one of the recurring themes of the semester.
The article also started off with the anecdote of the "United Breaks guitars" video-- a song I had stuck in my head for weeks in 2009 when I first watched the video. So its illustrative power was personal. It reminded me very much of the idea of social capital as well-- audience in social media is very much controlled by followers.
Gandhi supplies an even more succinct (hard to believe XD) definition of knowledge management in her piece: "organizing to know." That's incredibly apt, because a lot of what we've been talking about this semester is about putting knowledge in a form and in a system where others can access and use it. This application originated in the business world, then bridged over into libraries. Gandhi delineates in a way I've never quite seen before the differences between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom, in a kind of scaffolding humanity. Then she takes apart the components of KM-- which she considers to be knowledge, management, IT, and corporate culture. I almost think corporate culture is part knowledge and part management-- it's a system-wide understanding of how things work here.
This piece was interesting to read for me, because I work in a library which employs a few KM strategies to accomplish what she is talking about. We have an online database into which we post reference questions we get, for the benefit of other librarians who may receive and have to deal with similar reference issues.
Kumar's article returns to a concept I feel like I've dealt with a lot: crisis knowledge management. It addresses the Challenger disaster from the perspective of "bounded awareness." "Bounded awareness" is an idea from behavioral economics that decision makers often overlook relevant information (which can result in suboptimal outcomes.) The question, then, is how to manage knowledge so that all relevant information is not only readily available but obvious and utilized. A lot of this concerns tacit knowledge, which pertains to the methods managers use to consider their options.
Finally (really finally this time), I read Chalmeta and Grangel. I've read a lot about proposed knowledge management systems or evaluations of knowledge management systems, but not a lot about implementing new ones. But it makes sense to me that it wouldn't be a universal. Different companies work differently, and different systems will work for them. It makes sense that they would also require different methods of application. (Different. I don't think I've said that word enough yet.) The paper had similar feelings-- the word "adapt" was used a lot.
~*~
Readings Discussed
Chalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2008). Methodology for the implementation of knowledge management systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 742-755. doi:10.1002/asi.20785
Gandhi, S. (2004). Knowledge management and reference services. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(5), 368-381. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2004.06.003
Hemsley, J., & Mason, R. M. (2013). Knowledge and knowledge management in the social media age. Journal of Organizatational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23(1), 138-167. doi10.1080/10919392.2013.748614
Kumar J, A., & Chakrabarti, A. (2012). Bounded awareness and tacit knowledge: Revisiting Challenger disaster. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), 934-949. doi:10.1108/13673271211276209
Fortunately, I'm pretty good at math, and I knew this was impossible. I lined up my blog post bibliographies and went through my CiteULike library chronologically, and I realized I got distracted while analyzing the Massingham piece a few weeks back and forgot to stick it in my library. So I added that and then I was good to go with the four I had intended.
Except I couldn't manage to track down one of those (the doi doesn't exist?) so I had to pull in a last-minute fifth title as a substitution anyway.
The creation of this blog post is an excellent metaphor for this entire semester.
I began with Hemsley & Mason. I liked this piece right off the bat because the term "knowledge ecosystem" makes me feel a lot more keenly invested in this idea than "knowledge economy" ever has. Maybe it's the science education in my background, but the implication of interrelatedness and living interdependency gets me excited. (I'm a nerd.) This is especially appropriate for social media, which very much depends on human interaction and can change in a minute-- it's dependent on individuals, but also much bigger than they are. Harnessing this power from a knowledge management standpoint has been one of the recurring themes of the semester.
The article also started off with the anecdote of the "United Breaks guitars" video-- a song I had stuck in my head for weeks in 2009 when I first watched the video. So its illustrative power was personal. It reminded me very much of the idea of social capital as well-- audience in social media is very much controlled by followers.
Gandhi supplies an even more succinct (hard to believe XD) definition of knowledge management in her piece: "organizing to know." That's incredibly apt, because a lot of what we've been talking about this semester is about putting knowledge in a form and in a system where others can access and use it. This application originated in the business world, then bridged over into libraries. Gandhi delineates in a way I've never quite seen before the differences between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom, in a kind of scaffolding humanity. Then she takes apart the components of KM-- which she considers to be knowledge, management, IT, and corporate culture. I almost think corporate culture is part knowledge and part management-- it's a system-wide understanding of how things work here.
This piece was interesting to read for me, because I work in a library which employs a few KM strategies to accomplish what she is talking about. We have an online database into which we post reference questions we get, for the benefit of other librarians who may receive and have to deal with similar reference issues.
Kumar's article returns to a concept I feel like I've dealt with a lot: crisis knowledge management. It addresses the Challenger disaster from the perspective of "bounded awareness." "Bounded awareness" is an idea from behavioral economics that decision makers often overlook relevant information (which can result in suboptimal outcomes.) The question, then, is how to manage knowledge so that all relevant information is not only readily available but obvious and utilized. A lot of this concerns tacit knowledge, which pertains to the methods managers use to consider their options.
Finally (really finally this time), I read Chalmeta and Grangel. I've read a lot about proposed knowledge management systems or evaluations of knowledge management systems, but not a lot about implementing new ones. But it makes sense to me that it wouldn't be a universal. Different companies work differently, and different systems will work for them. It makes sense that they would also require different methods of application. (Different. I don't think I've said that word enough yet.) The paper had similar feelings-- the word "adapt" was used a lot.
~*~
Readings Discussed
Chalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2008). Methodology for the implementation of knowledge management systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 742-755. doi:10.1002/asi.20785
Gandhi, S. (2004). Knowledge management and reference services. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(5), 368-381. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2004.06.003
Hemsley, J., & Mason, R. M. (2013). Knowledge and knowledge management in the social media age. Journal of Organizatational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23(1), 138-167. doi10.1080/10919392.2013.748614
Kumar J, A., & Chakrabarti, A. (2012). Bounded awareness and tacit knowledge: Revisiting Challenger disaster. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), 934-949. doi:10.1108/13673271211276209
Friday, April 25, 2014
Ten Down
...and one to go!
Because the number of readings did not quite perfectly align with the number of blog posts for the semester, this post and the final one (slated to appear on May 1) will each contain four articles instead of the usual three. So fasten your seatbelts!
I began with an article by L.M. Lucas, because one of my favorite concepts I've taken from this course so far was one from long ago about trust, and how it is reinforced or even built from scratch through the act of knowledge transmission. Whereas the paper from which I drew that conclusion dealt with the oil industry, Lucas worked with electrical company employees from Fortune 500 companies. Lucas's findings were a bit more along the lines of common understanding than those I discussed lo these many weeks back-- he found that trust and reputation play into employees' willingness to share critical information, and that these things take time to develop. But the paper ended up saying something I can really get behind, which is that the creation of an open and trusting environment is good for organizational knowledge transfer. Managing the environment manages employee behavior.
Much like the Lucas piece, the Jones & Mahon article I read for my penultimate blog post was chosen because it hearkened back to some pieces I read earlier this semester about crisis and KM in highly volatile or emergent situations. This one focused on the military to examine tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in situations that can change in quick and important ways. The importance of tacit knowledge is especially underscored.
Hansen et al gives us a nice run-down of various KM strategies out there, and what organizations are doing to try to decide which ones will work best for them. Right off the bat, this piece grabbed me with its acknowledgement of a divide I've thought about this semester: that KM practices are practically as old as humanity, but that KM theory is relatively new. It then divides KM systems by ideology-- are they more focused on people or process? Either way seems to this paper's authors to be reasonably effective, but attempts to combine these strategies (or "straddle" the line between them) fail, in part because the people who work more smoothly with one strategy may not be able to shift easily to another type of system.
Finally, Goggins and Mascaro had a very interesting take on the idea of distance. They discuss the idea that technology literally makes the world a smaller place through examination of a rural IT firm and the ways it uses technology to lessen the impact of physical distance. This is especially relevant to organizations located in rural areas, because the space-to-person ratio is a bit different than that found in cities. This has real-world implications as to the nature and timing of collaboration between members.
Tune in next week for one more post and then a final wrap-up!
~*~
Readings Discussed
Goggins, S. P., & Mascaro, C. (2013). Context matters: The experience of physical, informational, and cultural distance in a rural IT firm. The Information Society, 29, 113-127. doi:10.1080/01972243.2012.758212
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge. Harvard Busindess Review. URL: http://consulting-ideas.com/wp-content/uploads/Whats-your-strat-art.pdf
Jones, N. B. & Mahon, J. F. (2012) Nimble knowledge transfer in high velocity/turbulent environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 774-788. doi:10.1108/13673271211262808
Lucas, L. M. (2005). The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 87-101. doi:10.1108/13673270510610350
Because the number of readings did not quite perfectly align with the number of blog posts for the semester, this post and the final one (slated to appear on May 1) will each contain four articles instead of the usual three. So fasten your seatbelts!
I began with an article by L.M. Lucas, because one of my favorite concepts I've taken from this course so far was one from long ago about trust, and how it is reinforced or even built from scratch through the act of knowledge transmission. Whereas the paper from which I drew that conclusion dealt with the oil industry, Lucas worked with electrical company employees from Fortune 500 companies. Lucas's findings were a bit more along the lines of common understanding than those I discussed lo these many weeks back-- he found that trust and reputation play into employees' willingness to share critical information, and that these things take time to develop. But the paper ended up saying something I can really get behind, which is that the creation of an open and trusting environment is good for organizational knowledge transfer. Managing the environment manages employee behavior.
Much like the Lucas piece, the Jones & Mahon article I read for my penultimate blog post was chosen because it hearkened back to some pieces I read earlier this semester about crisis and KM in highly volatile or emergent situations. This one focused on the military to examine tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in situations that can change in quick and important ways. The importance of tacit knowledge is especially underscored.
Hansen et al gives us a nice run-down of various KM strategies out there, and what organizations are doing to try to decide which ones will work best for them. Right off the bat, this piece grabbed me with its acknowledgement of a divide I've thought about this semester: that KM practices are practically as old as humanity, but that KM theory is relatively new. It then divides KM systems by ideology-- are they more focused on people or process? Either way seems to this paper's authors to be reasonably effective, but attempts to combine these strategies (or "straddle" the line between them) fail, in part because the people who work more smoothly with one strategy may not be able to shift easily to another type of system.
Finally, Goggins and Mascaro had a very interesting take on the idea of distance. They discuss the idea that technology literally makes the world a smaller place through examination of a rural IT firm and the ways it uses technology to lessen the impact of physical distance. This is especially relevant to organizations located in rural areas, because the space-to-person ratio is a bit different than that found in cities. This has real-world implications as to the nature and timing of collaboration between members.
Tune in next week for one more post and then a final wrap-up!
~*~
Readings Discussed
Goggins, S. P., & Mascaro, C. (2013). Context matters: The experience of physical, informational, and cultural distance in a rural IT firm. The Information Society, 29, 113-127. doi:10.1080/01972243.2012.758212
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge. Harvard Busindess Review. URL: http://consulting-ideas.com/wp-content/uploads/Whats-your-strat-art.pdf
Jones, N. B. & Mahon, J. F. (2012) Nimble knowledge transfer in high velocity/turbulent environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 774-788. doi:10.1108/13673271211262808
Lucas, L. M. (2005). The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 87-101. doi:10.1108/13673270510610350
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Like in my last post, I chose to read a piece this week dealing with academic libraries. As I mentioned last week, I'm interested in an academic track, so these articles have a particular relevance to my projected future. The Townley piece begins with a discussion of what I've been thinking of in my head as "feral" knowledge management systems-- those created in the wild in response to perceived need and separate from any formal KM theory or information professionals. It treats knowledge as an environment to be manipulated as well as an asset to be capitalized upon.
It also features one of the cleaner definitions of KM I've seen-- "Knowledge management may be defined as the set of processes that create and share knowledge across an organization to optimize the use of judgment in the attainment of mission and goals. It is an emerging discipline developing on the
interstices of organizational psychology, library and information science, economics, and computer science. It involves capturing an organization’s goal-related knowledge as well as knowledge of its
products, customers, competition, and processes, and then sharing that knowledge with the appropriate people throughout the organization. Further, knowledge management seeks to support
communities of practice in creating and using knowledge. Finally, it accepts the notion that knowledge transmission is primarily a human activity. Thus, knowledge management is the art of creating value from an organization’s knowledge assets."
The Tsoukas piece defining organizational knowledge makes a few good points about the organic natues of knowledge creation and sharing within organization, and the tacitness of its existence. I get a real sense reading this piece that "organizational knowledge" is worth more than the sum of its parts-- that there exists an invisible reservoir of knowledge that is more than any one person can know.
Finally, I chose to read an article on "informational cities" because it was a term I found intriguing. It relates to the concept of the information society which has been mentioned in many of the readings. in some ways, this makes it difficult to take seriously-- all the readings I've done so far related to the (romantic) (idealized) information society have been skeptical (as my classmates can attest). It talks about the shrinking of the world in response to digital information technology and "glocalization" (which is a word I hated on sight). The idea of community interaction is one that appeals to me but I find this kind of forward-thinking optimism a little cloying. I do, however, enjoy the idea of a city-- as an organization, above-- as a living thing, separate from and greater than the individuals that make it up.
~*~
Readings Discussed
Stock, W. G. (2011). Informational cities: Analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 963-986. doi:10.1002/asi.21506
Townley, C. T. (2001). Knowledge management and academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 62(1), 44-55. URL:http://crl.acrl.org/content/62/1/44.short
Tsoukas, H. (2001). What is organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00268
It also features one of the cleaner definitions of KM I've seen-- "Knowledge management may be defined as the set of processes that create and share knowledge across an organization to optimize the use of judgment in the attainment of mission and goals. It is an emerging discipline developing on the
interstices of organizational psychology, library and information science, economics, and computer science. It involves capturing an organization’s goal-related knowledge as well as knowledge of its
products, customers, competition, and processes, and then sharing that knowledge with the appropriate people throughout the organization. Further, knowledge management seeks to support
communities of practice in creating and using knowledge. Finally, it accepts the notion that knowledge transmission is primarily a human activity. Thus, knowledge management is the art of creating value from an organization’s knowledge assets."
The Tsoukas piece defining organizational knowledge makes a few good points about the organic natues of knowledge creation and sharing within organization, and the tacitness of its existence. I get a real sense reading this piece that "organizational knowledge" is worth more than the sum of its parts-- that there exists an invisible reservoir of knowledge that is more than any one person can know.
Finally, I chose to read an article on "informational cities" because it was a term I found intriguing. It relates to the concept of the information society which has been mentioned in many of the readings. in some ways, this makes it difficult to take seriously-- all the readings I've done so far related to the (romantic) (idealized) information society have been skeptical (as my classmates can attest). It talks about the shrinking of the world in response to digital information technology and "glocalization" (which is a word I hated on sight). The idea of community interaction is one that appeals to me but I find this kind of forward-thinking optimism a little cloying. I do, however, enjoy the idea of a city-- as an organization, above-- as a living thing, separate from and greater than the individuals that make it up.
~*~
Readings Discussed
Stock, W. G. (2011). Informational cities: Analysis and construction of cities in the knowledge society. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 963-986. doi:10.1002/asi.21506
Townley, C. T. (2001). Knowledge management and academic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 62(1), 44-55. URL:http://crl.acrl.org/content/62/1/44.short
Tsoukas, H. (2001). What is organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00268
Friday, April 11, 2014
As we approach the end of the semester (and I begin making arrangements for my final four blog posts), I realize I have begun to understand concepts and vocabulary that were very difficult for me to handle at the beginning of the semester. I also see that there is a lot of material I am not going to get to! This week I found a variety of interesting-seeming literature to approach, because I don't have many more of these to write.
The bad thing about coming to Alavi this late in the term is that it's an overview of a lot of theories I've become acquainted with piecemeal, and it's hard to latch on to any ideas I consider new or interesting about them when I've already seen them through so many lenses. I think this would be a great piece for newcomers to KM-- essentially, it makes the argument that KM is complex and can fulfill many different types of roles within an organization (retrieval, sharing, and creation of knowledge both explicit and tacit).
Huber returns to what I've learned is a favorite topic of mine, knowledge exchange. Here it is framed as organizational learning-- creation and transmission of knowledge between members of an organization, which will ideally better the working processes therein. It plays around with the idea of experimentation as a method for knowledge creation (which Huber thinks does not predict long-term success), and the extent to which learning from experience can be passed along. My favorite idea in this piece is the idea of "grafting," which is acquiring new members who possess knowledge from other areas and bringing them into your organization. I've seen this happen in real life but never had the process explained this way; it seems like an elegant way of explaining a certain kind of knowledge mixing.
The Jantz piece was of particular interest to me, because I intend to work in an academic library once I'm out of school. This is one of very few KM resources which discusses libraries specifically, and exceptionally few that deal in any way with the idea of using KM to serve others. Up-and-coming KM systems seem to be improving methods for academic librarians to be effective information brokers (terminology I fell in love with in one of my classes last semester).
Less than one month to go!
Huber returns to what I've learned is a favorite topic of mine, knowledge exchange. Here it is framed as organizational learning-- creation and transmission of knowledge between members of an organization, which will ideally better the working processes therein. It plays around with the idea of experimentation as a method for knowledge creation (which Huber thinks does not predict long-term success), and the extent to which learning from experience can be passed along. My favorite idea in this piece is the idea of "grafting," which is acquiring new members who possess knowledge from other areas and bringing them into your organization. I've seen this happen in real life but never had the process explained this way; it seems like an elegant way of explaining a certain kind of knowledge mixing.
The Jantz piece was of particular interest to me, because I intend to work in an academic library once I'm out of school. This is one of very few KM resources which discusses libraries specifically, and exceptionally few that deal in any way with the idea of using KM to serve others. Up-and-coming KM systems seem to be improving methods for academic librarians to be effective information brokers (terminology I fell in love with in one of my classes last semester).
Less than one month to go!
~*~
Readings discussed
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250961
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634941
Jantz, R. (2001). Knowledge management in academic libraries: Special tools and processes to support information professionals. Reference Services Review, 29(1), 33-39. doi:10.1108/00907320110366778
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Research, research, research
I find research articles to be simultaneously a little easier to engage than review pieces and a bit more complicated to tease meaning out of. Review articles have the path laid out before them in a way research articles do not, but they are also bigger and somewhat unwieldy. This is something of a departure for me, because my history in biology taught me to be thankful for the rare review article that would help me decode the hundreds of research articles out there, in library school I have been more interested in primary research. In that spirit, I have chosen exclusively research articles to give myself something of a treat as spring (finally) rolls in.
Kelly posed an interesting question about social media that (in combination with this comment left by a classmate on my last post) helped to form my approach to this material. I chose he Yuan and Zhao article because if its concern with online "social" technology in knowledge sharing, and the Massingham because it returned to the idea of risk. The Wasko and Faraj piece deals with the idea of social capital, which I found very interesting a few posts back.
Yuan and Zhao returns to the idea that knowledge has an economic value, and that efficient knowledge sharing can have a huge impact on the potential success or failure of an organization. They address the fact that formal knowledge transmission systems often fail, and that social media has begun to fill the void of exchange in user-generated content. Of the 21 employees interviewed, 15 stated they used social media (blogs, wikis, etc. provided to them by their company) to share knowledge about their jobs. 14 used traditional KM tools like databases (but those in the R&D department seemed to find such tools outdated), and all 21 used communication tools (telephone, email, etc.). It seems that any way to reach other people is going to be used to exchange knowledge. More strikingly, users of social media reported it to be more effective than traditional KM tools.
Wasko and Faraj's piece was a breeze to read, possibly because all its cited sources and theories were things I have already read in my KM studies! I've noticed a high rate of recursion, but never more so than working on this post. I saw a lot of names I recognized and a lot of vocabulary I've picked up, too! They take the concept of social capital and break it down into parts-- reputation, the tendency to enjoy helping, ease of access by others, expertise, experience, commitment, and reciprocity. All of these factors seemed to have a positive impact on one's likelihood of advancing one's knowledge (or of collaborating with others to solve a problem). Those at the center tended to act as a hub, frequently transferring knowledge to others and receiving high ratings for helpfulness over the course of the study (if answers were deemed unhelpful, that was weighed differently from giving a helpful answer, from not answering at all, etc.)
Ultimately, Massingham's paper was the one I struggled most with, for no particular reason I can name. I think the writing was fine and clear, and the concepts on their own weren't too difficult. I guess I just wasn't in the best frame of mind when I approached it. Essentially, it exposes a hole in the tree model of problem solving, and asserts that a greater understanding of knowledge management constructs would allow for a more nuanced risk management approach. This would allow members of an organization to appropriately triage and treat problems more efficiently. A knowledge-based approach helps differentiate risks better than a risk-based system, which helps organizations deal with those different risks as their needs require.
~*~
Readings discussed:
Massingham, P. (2010). Knowledge risk management: A framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 464-485. doi:10.1108/13673271011050166
Kelly posed an interesting question about social media that (in combination with this comment left by a classmate on my last post) helped to form my approach to this material. I chose he Yuan and Zhao article because if its concern with online "social" technology in knowledge sharing, and the Massingham because it returned to the idea of risk. The Wasko and Faraj piece deals with the idea of social capital, which I found very interesting a few posts back.
Yuan and Zhao returns to the idea that knowledge has an economic value, and that efficient knowledge sharing can have a huge impact on the potential success or failure of an organization. They address the fact that formal knowledge transmission systems often fail, and that social media has begun to fill the void of exchange in user-generated content. Of the 21 employees interviewed, 15 stated they used social media (blogs, wikis, etc. provided to them by their company) to share knowledge about their jobs. 14 used traditional KM tools like databases (but those in the R&D department seemed to find such tools outdated), and all 21 used communication tools (telephone, email, etc.). It seems that any way to reach other people is going to be used to exchange knowledge. More strikingly, users of social media reported it to be more effective than traditional KM tools.
Wasko and Faraj's piece was a breeze to read, possibly because all its cited sources and theories were things I have already read in my KM studies! I've noticed a high rate of recursion, but never more so than working on this post. I saw a lot of names I recognized and a lot of vocabulary I've picked up, too! They take the concept of social capital and break it down into parts-- reputation, the tendency to enjoy helping, ease of access by others, expertise, experience, commitment, and reciprocity. All of these factors seemed to have a positive impact on one's likelihood of advancing one's knowledge (or of collaborating with others to solve a problem). Those at the center tended to act as a hub, frequently transferring knowledge to others and receiving high ratings for helpfulness over the course of the study (if answers were deemed unhelpful, that was weighed differently from giving a helpful answer, from not answering at all, etc.)
Ultimately, Massingham's paper was the one I struggled most with, for no particular reason I can name. I think the writing was fine and clear, and the concepts on their own weren't too difficult. I guess I just wasn't in the best frame of mind when I approached it. Essentially, it exposes a hole in the tree model of problem solving, and asserts that a greater understanding of knowledge management constructs would allow for a more nuanced risk management approach. This would allow members of an organization to appropriately triage and treat problems more efficiently. A knowledge-based approach helps differentiate risks better than a risk-based system, which helps organizations deal with those different risks as their needs require.
~*~
Readings discussed:
Massingham, P. (2010). Knowledge risk management: A framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 464-485. doi:10.1108/13673271011050166
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 29(1), 35-57. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148667
Yuan, Y. C., Zhao, X., Liao, Q., & Chi, C. (2013). The use of different information and communication technologies to support knowledge sharing in organizations: From e-mail to micro-blogging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1659-1670. doi:10.1002/asi.22863
Friday, March 28, 2014
I return!
After a hiatus of far too long (cliff's notes version: schoolwork, internship at Library of Congress, death in the family, more schoolwork), I return with another blog post. I returned to the tried-and-true method of choosing titles at random to read for this post, so I'm just going to have (completely blind) faith that they have anything in common worth talking about.
The first piece I looked at was Lam and Chua's case study on knowledge outsourcing. This article was rather obtuse and I had difficulty piecing it together, so please let me know if I missed anything important! Faculty members and members of the online courseware development team at Fenton University were interviewed to glean a rich picture of outsourcing in the online course community. Essentially, they found that people at one step in the process identify knowledge needs and then choose someone to provide knowledge to meet those needs. Then, if the knowledge provider is satisfied with the terms of the negotiation, the knowledge is delivered. This allows for a timely and quality learning process.
However, there are risks involved in knowledge outsourcing, including poor utilization by the client, may not meet the standards required, or being miscommunicated. This makes sense, because the ore steps are added to a process, the more opportunities there are to mess it up. However, since it is not feasible for one person-- or even one organization!-- to know everything, even everything they need to know, outsourcing still makes a lot of sense in the corporate world and in other situations.
Tremblay's piece, unfortunately, was similarly difficult for me to break down, but I'll take a stab at it nonetheless. It returns to the concept of the "information society" that I addressed in an earlier post. Like the earlier piece I discussed, Tremblay's article is skeptical verging on hostile toward the vague-yet-idealized notion of the "information society," and instead breaks down information exchange as a series of economic and social theories in practice. I would not say I enjoyed this article. It felt longer than it was, and I came away from it with a confused kind of pessimism. Tremblay asserts that no one knows where information technology is headed, but that people who have so far made predictions are most definitely wrong, because their pictures are too global and too simplistic.
Finally, I circled back to an article that discussed knowledge risks within organizations. Trkman and Desouza explored the dangers of sharing too much or two little. As Whitney and I discussed at this post of hers, collaboration and information sharing is a double-egded sword; while all parties share the benefits of shared information, all parties also share the risk or reprisal in the event of something going wrong. In an economic sense, there is also the risk of loss of competitive edge; if competitors have all the useful information your company has, you may no longer be able to beat them at doing what you both do.
This represents a take on knowledge sharing I hadn't thought of. I don't tend to think in these sorts of clearly-delineated capitalist ways, but I suppose it's rather obvious. Given that knowledge has an economic value (it can be sold, bartered, or even just leveraged for higher worth of its holder), it makes sense that it would also need to be controlled for the preservation of the capitalist market.
~*~
Readings discussed:
Lam, W., & Chua, A. Y. (2009). Knowledge outsourcing: An alternative strategy for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 28-43. doi:10.1108/13673270910962851
Tremblay, G. (1995). The information society: From Fordism to Gatesism. Canadian Journal of Communication, 20(4), 461-482. URL: http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/891/797
Trkman, P., & Desouza, K.C. (2012). Knowledge risks in organizational networks: An exploratory framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2011.11.001.
The first piece I looked at was Lam and Chua's case study on knowledge outsourcing. This article was rather obtuse and I had difficulty piecing it together, so please let me know if I missed anything important! Faculty members and members of the online courseware development team at Fenton University were interviewed to glean a rich picture of outsourcing in the online course community. Essentially, they found that people at one step in the process identify knowledge needs and then choose someone to provide knowledge to meet those needs. Then, if the knowledge provider is satisfied with the terms of the negotiation, the knowledge is delivered. This allows for a timely and quality learning process.
However, there are risks involved in knowledge outsourcing, including poor utilization by the client, may not meet the standards required, or being miscommunicated. This makes sense, because the ore steps are added to a process, the more opportunities there are to mess it up. However, since it is not feasible for one person-- or even one organization!-- to know everything, even everything they need to know, outsourcing still makes a lot of sense in the corporate world and in other situations.
Tremblay's piece, unfortunately, was similarly difficult for me to break down, but I'll take a stab at it nonetheless. It returns to the concept of the "information society" that I addressed in an earlier post. Like the earlier piece I discussed, Tremblay's article is skeptical verging on hostile toward the vague-yet-idealized notion of the "information society," and instead breaks down information exchange as a series of economic and social theories in practice. I would not say I enjoyed this article. It felt longer than it was, and I came away from it with a confused kind of pessimism. Tremblay asserts that no one knows where information technology is headed, but that people who have so far made predictions are most definitely wrong, because their pictures are too global and too simplistic.
Finally, I circled back to an article that discussed knowledge risks within organizations. Trkman and Desouza explored the dangers of sharing too much or two little. As Whitney and I discussed at this post of hers, collaboration and information sharing is a double-egded sword; while all parties share the benefits of shared information, all parties also share the risk or reprisal in the event of something going wrong. In an economic sense, there is also the risk of loss of competitive edge; if competitors have all the useful information your company has, you may no longer be able to beat them at doing what you both do.
This represents a take on knowledge sharing I hadn't thought of. I don't tend to think in these sorts of clearly-delineated capitalist ways, but I suppose it's rather obvious. Given that knowledge has an economic value (it can be sold, bartered, or even just leveraged for higher worth of its holder), it makes sense that it would also need to be controlled for the preservation of the capitalist market.
~*~
Readings discussed:
Lam, W., & Chua, A. Y. (2009). Knowledge outsourcing: An alternative strategy for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 28-43. doi:10.1108/13673270910962851
Tremblay, G. (1995). The information society: From Fordism to Gatesism. Canadian Journal of Communication, 20(4), 461-482. URL: http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/891/797
Trkman, P., & Desouza, K.C. (2012). Knowledge risks in organizational networks: An exploratory framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2011.11.001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)