Building A Shared Understanding Of Knowledge And Knowledge Management

Definitions Of Knowledge

One of the difficulties that organisations experience, when trying to introduce knowledge management, is helping individuals build an understanding of what is meant by the terms knowledge and knowledge management.

The term knowledge is in itself a difficult concept. It is a subject that has intrigued and occupied the minds of many of the great philosophers. Unlike many other assets, knowledge isn’t something that you can touch, or feel, hence the reason why it is often described as the invisible, or intangible asset. Some knowledge exists outside the individual, in text format, but a large percentage of knowledge resides within people. One of its other elusive characteristics is that the value of knowledge is highly contextual, i.e. you only know what you need to know, at the time when you need to know it; something that many organisations have discovered far too late.

While many knowledge management practitioners argue that we shouldn’t get too hung-up on definitions, it is important to ensure that there is some common understanding about what knowledge the organisation is trying to manage. Tom Boydell^[4], a leading writer on learning organisations, has developed a framework for thinking about knowledge. This consists of four types of knowledge and three knowledge levels. The four types of knowledge include:

1. knowing about things,

2. knowing how to do things,

3. knowing how to become yourself,

4. knowing how to achieve things with others;

and three knowledge levels:

1. knowing how to implement,

2. knowing how to improve,

3. knowing how to integrate.

Davenport and Prusak, leading writers in the field of knowledge management, refer to knowledge as:

. . . a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organisations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes, practices and norms.
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998:5).

Davenport and Prusak point out that knowledge is different from information, since information only becomes knowledge when transformed by one or more of the following processes:

• Comparison – how does information about this situation compare to that of others?

• Consequences – what implications does this information have for decisions and actions?

• Connections – how does this bit of knowledge relate to other pieces of knowledge?

• Conversation – what do others think about this information? It is this particular activity that emphasises the importance of social interaction for the knowledge creation process.

In my own practitioner work, I tend to concentrate on four different types of knowledge:

Know Of, Or Know About

This is often referred to as ‘operational level’ knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is used as part of individuals’ day-to-day work. In a retail environment, operational level knowledge might include awareness of the current week’s special offers, new promotions, store layout changes etc. In a legal environment, operational level knowledge might include changes in legislation relating to employment law.

This type of knowledge lends itself to being codified and hence more readily accessible through intranet systems, or transmitted via mass communication techniques (e.g. through e-mail, memos).

Know How

This again is often referred to as operational level knowledge. However, the type of knowledge here is tacit knowledge, i.e. our accumulated experience of how things work and also how things get done. It is the type of knowledge that gets called upon when problem-solving and decision-making and sets the context within which knowledge gets applied. It is for this reason that tacit knowledge is more difficult to codify.

Accessing ‘know how’ isn’t something that can always easily be extracted through the use of interviewing techniques. This was an important discovery made by the Xerox corporation when researching how to design information systems to support the way people really work (Seely Brown, 1998). The initial stage of the Xerox research involved interviewing certain groups of employees about how they went about their day-to-day jobs. When clerks working in the organisation’s accountants department were interviewed about their jobs, what they described in the interviews pretty much matched the information in their job description.

However, when these same clerks were observed at work by anthropologists a very different picture of their jobs emerged. The anthropologists observed how although the clerks referred to formal procedures as they went about their day-to-day work, they also had to adapt many of their day-to-day work activities in order to get the job done. What was concluded from this study was that employees use formal procedures as a way of understanding what needs to be done, rather than to identify the actual steps that need to be taken to get from A to B. Instead the clerks draw on ‘workarounds’, i.e. informal steps, which are un-documented, and which managers are often unaware of. Given these findings it is clear why induction and initial on-the-job training for new members of the team become so important. Without this an organisation is likely to find that new employees follow documented procedures that do not deliver the intended results. The result: dissatisfied customers and disheartened employees.

Know Why

In the complex and ever-changing business world that we operate in today employees need to be more strategically aware. They need to know where their organisation is going and why. They also need to know about the organisation’s value system and how this links to the organisation’s strategic direction. This is important for two reasons. One is to ensure that the decisions that individuals make as part of their day-to-day jobs are consistent with the organisation’s overall strategic direction. The second reason is so that individuals can understand how they can best contribute to the organisation’s strategic goals.

If individuals are clearer about where and how they can contribute to the organisation’s future then this will help them feel more connected. Robert B. Reich, Professor of Economic and Social Research at Brandeis University, argues that in the modern workplace employers need to work at creating ‘social glue’. Reich suggests that ‘Collaboration and mutual advantage are the essence of the organisation. They can create flexibility, resiliency, speed and creativity – the fundamental qualities of the 21st century.’ To help build ‘social glue’, individuals, according to Reich, need to be given opportunities to work on projects which make a real difference and where the organisational goal is aligned with the individual’s own personal goals and values.

In today’s ever-changing business world individuals also need to be aware of the economic, social and political changes taking place around them, so that they can have intelligent discussions about the likely implications for the business, as well as their own careers. Building this external perspective can help individuals spot emerging trends, as well as see existing landscapes through a new pair of lenses.

Some of the ways in which organisations are helping individuals build their ‘know why’ are discussed in later chapters in this book.

Know Who

As much of an organisation’s knowledge resides within individuals’ heads, knowledge of who is who, both within and outside the organisation, and what knowledge can be unlocked through networking is critical. The ability to build and maintain social networks, as we shall see later, has become one of the critical knowledge-building competencies.

In any organisation it is important to have this taxonomy of knowledge in mind when developing policies and practices for managing knowledge. Without this organisations may focus their energies and other resources on developing one particular type of knowledge, leaving themselves vulnerable in other areas.

Other KM practitioners have adopted other methods for categorising the types of knowledge that organisations need to focus on managing (Knight, 2001). The ‘knowledge types’ method pioneered by Knight and his colleagues in ICL, for example, include knowledge types such as:

• Product and service knowledge – the business ‘content’ relating to the customer experience.

• Process knowledge – how to get things done.

• Customer and supplier knowledge – knowledge about relationships.

• Project knowledge – focused on organisational memory and learning.

• Technical, or expert knowledge – supporting people with know how.

^[4]Boydell, T., Levels and Types of Knowledge. Presentation at Roffey Park Institute. Autumn 1999