Introduction
As we trace the evolution of computing technologies in business, we can observe their changing level of organizational impact. The first level of impact was at the point work got done and transactions (e.g., orders, deposits and reservations) took place. The inflexible, centralized mainframe allowed for little more than massive number crunching, commonly known as electronic data processing. Organizations became data heavy at the bottom and data management systems were used to keep the data in check. Later, the management information systems were used to aggre- gate data into useful information reports, often prescheduled, for the control level of the organization — people who were making sure that organizational resources like personnel, money and physical goods were being deployed efficiently. As information technology (IT) and information systems (IS) started to facilitate data and information overflow, and corporate attention became a scarce resource, the concept of knowledge emerged as a particularly high-value form of information (Grover & Davenport, 2001).
Information technology can play an important role in successful knowledge man- agement initiatives. However, the concept of coding and transmitting knowledge in organizations is not new: training and employee development programs, organiza- tional policies, routines, procedures, reports and manuals have served this function for many years. What is new and exciting in the knowledge management area is the potential for using modern information technology (e.g., the Internet, intranets, extranets, browsers, data warehouses, data filters, software agents and expert sys- tems) to support knowledge creation, sharing and exchange in an organization and
between organizations. Modern information technology can collect, systematize, structure, store, combine, distribute and present information of value to knowledge workers (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), more and more companies have insti- tuted knowledge repositories, supporting such diverse types of knowledge as best practices, lessons learned, product development knowledge, customer knowledge, human resource management knowledge and methods-based knowledge. Groupware and intranet-based technologies have become standard knowledge infrastructures. A new set of professional job titles — the knowledge manager, the chief knowledge officer (CKO), the knowledge coordinator and the knowledge-network facilitator
— affirms the widespread legitimacy that knowledge management has earned in the corporate world.
The low cost of computers and networks has created a potential infrastructure for knowledge sharing and opened up important knowledge management opportunities.
The computational power, as such, has little relevance to knowledge work, but the communication and storage capabilities of networked computers make computa- tional power an important enabler of effective knowledge work. Through e-mail, groupware, the Internet and intranets, computers and networks can point to people with knowledge and connect those who need to share knowledge independent of time and place.
For example, electronic networks of practice are computer-mediated discussion forums focused on problems of practice that enable individuals to exchange advice and ideas with others based on common interests. Electronic networks make it pos- sible to share information quickly, globally and with large numbers of individuals.
Electronic networks that focus on knowledge exchange frequently emerge in fields where the pace of technological change requires access to knowledge unavailable within any single organization (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
In the knowledge-based view of the firm, knowledge is the foundation of a firm’s competitive advantage and, ultimately, the primary driver of a firm’s value. Inher- ently, however, knowledge resides within individuals and, more specifically, in the employees who create, recognize, archive, access and apply knowledge in carry- ing out their tasks. Consequently, the movement of knowledge across individual and organizational boundaries, into and from repositories and into organizational routines and practices is ultimately dependent on employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors (Bock et al., 2005).
According to Grover and Davenport (2001), most knowledge management projects in organizations involve the use of information technology. Such projects fall into relatively few categories and types, each of which has a key objective. Although it is possible, and even desirable, to combine multiple objectives in a single project, this was not normally observed in a study of 31 knowledge management projects in
1997 (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Since that time, it is possible that projects have matured and taken on more ambitious collections of objectives.
Regardless of the definition of knowledge as the highest value of content in a con- tinuum starting at data, encompassing information and ending at knowledge itself, knowledge managers often take a highly inclusive approach to the content with which they deal. In practice, what companies actually manage under the banner of knowledge management is a mix of knowledge, information and unrefined data
— in short, whatever anyone finds that is useful and easy to store in an electronic repository. In the case of data and information, however, there are often attempts to add more value and create knowledge. This transformation might involve the addition of insight, experience, context, interpretation or a myriad of other activities in which human brains specialize (Grover & Davenport, 2001).
Identifying, nurturing and harvesting knowledge is a principal concern in the in- formation society and the knowledge age. Effective use of knowledge-facilitating tools and techniques is critical, and a number of computational tools have been developed. While numerous techniques are available, it remains difficult to analyze or compare specific tools. In part, this is because knowledge management is a young discipline. The arena is evolving rapidly as more people enter the fray and encounter new problems (Housel & Bell, 2001).
In addition, new technologies support applications that were impossible before.
Moreover, the multidisciplinary character of knowledge management combines several disciplines, including business and management, computer science, cyber- netics and philosophy. Each of these fields may lay claim to the study of knowledge management, and the field is frequently defined so broadly that anything can be incorporated. Finally, it is difficult to make sense of the many knowledge manage- ment tools available; it is not difficult to perform a search to produce a list of more than one hundred software providers. Each of the software packages employ unique visions and aims to capture its share of the market (Housel & Bell, 2001).
Ward and Peppard (2002) find that there are two dominant and contrasting views of IS/IT in knowledge management: the engineering perspective and the social process perspective. The engineering perspective views knowledge management as a technol- ogy process. Many organizations have taken this approach in managing knowledge, believing that it is concerned with managing pieces of intellectual capital. Driving this view is the belief that knowledge can be codified and stored; in essence that knowledge is explicit and therefore is little more than information.
The alternative view is that knowledge is a social process. As such, it asserts that knowledge resides in people’s heads and that it is tacit. As such, it cannot be eas- ily codified and only revealed through its application. As tacit knowledge cannot be directly transferred from person to person, its acquisition occurs only through practice. Consequently, its transfer between people is slow, costly and uncertain.
Technology, within this perspective, can only support the context of knowledge work. It has been argued that IT-based systems used to support knowledge manage- ment can only be of benefit if used to support the development and communication of human meaning. One reason for the failure of IT in some knowledge manage- ment initiatives is that the designers of the knowledge management systems fail to understand the situation and work practices of the users and the complex human processes involved in their work.
While technology can be used with knowledge management initiatives, Ward and Peppard (2002) argue that it should never be the first step. Knowledge management is to them primarily a human and process issue. Once these two aspects have been addressed, then the created processes are usually very amenable to being supported and enhanced by the use of technology.
What, then, is knowledge management technology? According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), the concept of knowledge management technology is not only broad but also a bit slippery to define. Some infrastructure technology that we don’t ordi- narily think of in this category can be useful in facilitating knowledge management.
Examples are video conferencing and the telephone. Both of these technologies don’t capture or distribute structured knowledge, but they are quite effective at enabling people to transfer tacit knowledge.
Our focus here, however, is on technology that captures, stores and distributes structured knowledge for use by people. The goal of these technologies is to take knowledge that exists in human heads, and partly in paper documents, and make it widely available throughout an organization. Similarly, Alavi and Leidner (2001) argue that information systems designed to support knowledge in organizations may not appear radically different from other forms of IT support, but will be geared toward enabling users to assign meaning to information and to capture some of their knowledge in information. Therefore, the concept of knowledge management technology in this book is less concerned with any degree of technology sophisti- cation and more concerned with the usefulness in performing knowledge work in and between organizations.
Moffett and McAdam (2003) illustrate the variety of knowledge management technology tools by distinguishing between collaborative tools, content manage- ment and business intelligence. Collaborative tools include groupware technology, meeting support systems, knowledge directories and intranets/extranets. Content management includes the Internet, agents and filters, electronic publishing systems, document management systems and office automation systems. Business intelligence includes data warehousing, decision support systems, knowledge-based systems and workflow systems. In addition to technologies, we also present techniques in this book. The term technique is defined as a set of precisely described procedures for achieving a standard task (Kettinger et al., 1997).